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.
But on the parameters you set, an object of a known weight travelling at a known speed brakes with a known level of pressure with a known level of precipitation on a known condition of the road covering and known condition of the tyres is met by an object travelling at a known velocity of a known mass with a known angle of entry and a known rate of descent based on atmospheric conditions and gravitational pull, you trust the theory but not the experimental practice.
What value the "truth" of your "proof"?
What value the "truth" of your "proof"?
Everton, are you seriously suggesting that all of the necessary variables required to work out how this child survived are known? How could they be? Who would know whether the child pulled up its left leg as it went under the bus? Who would know if the driver swung the wheel two degrees to the left for 0.024 of a second and then back?
Unless every variable (and there must be hundreds) could be known and replicated, it would be a very strange sort of a person who would agree to take part in your 'test'?
Essentially, what your case comes down to is your personal incredulity. You can't believe this lad survived, therefore it can't have been chance. It's not much of an argument.
Unless every variable (and there must be hundreds) could be known and replicated, it would be a very strange sort of a person who would agree to take part in your 'test'?
Essentially, what your case comes down to is your personal incredulity. You can't believe this lad survived, therefore it can't have been chance. It's not much of an argument.
You could ask him if he moved his leg, using your own standards what do you think the probability of his survival would be? You're the one who's now expressing incredulity. It's interesting to note that when you ask for proof whatever answers you get you dismiss as inadmissable evidence. Even when it comes to ghosts you can't even decide the parameters to prove their existence! If one group set a standard another would immediately dismiss it as inaccurate. That's the trouble with scientists (and all the atheists I've met) they can't agree about almost anything! ;-)
Maybe you'll fall back on the old fail safe that there's a perectly reasonable explaination for everythng?
While you're here would you mind answering the question on moral arbitration? And if you don't mind could you flit through the others on the previous page?
Maybe you'll fall back on the old fail safe that there's a perectly reasonable explaination for everythng?
While you're here would you mind answering the question on moral arbitration? And if you don't mind could you flit through the others on the previous page?
What question on moral arbitration? (Please don't let it be Theland's over ripe cherry...)
When you say that one could just ask the boy, are you suggesting that a boy who has hit by a bus is going to be able to answer whether he moved his leg, at what point, through what angle, for what duration etc.? I would suggest that a boy walking along a street without being hit by a bus wouldn't be able to tell you such things. That's what I mean about there being too many variables.
Your answer is just 'god of the gaps' logic - "I can't think of an answer, ergo it must be God".
When you say that one could just ask the boy, are you suggesting that a boy who has hit by a bus is going to be able to answer whether he moved his leg, at what point, through what angle, for what duration etc.? I would suggest that a boy walking along a street without being hit by a bus wouldn't be able to tell you such things. That's what I mean about there being too many variables.
Your answer is just 'god of the gaps' logic - "I can't think of an answer, ergo it must be God".
You're being evasive now Waldo, tut tut.
What is the probability of his survival?
How did he survive? What is your explaination?
Mathematics could even set the parameters for his survival and still be unable to achieve the same result, and I agree it would need a very strange sort of person to agree to such a test, whether they had faith or not as the case may be.
If you go to the previous page you'll see a series of questions by me spread amongst 2 posts, look for the question marks. ;-)
What is the probability of his survival?
How did he survive? What is your explaination?
Mathematics could even set the parameters for his survival and still be unable to achieve the same result, and I agree it would need a very strange sort of person to agree to such a test, whether they had faith or not as the case may be.
If you go to the previous page you'll see a series of questions by me spread amongst 2 posts, look for the question marks. ;-)
123 I'm not attempting to 'decide' what parameters to set in order to prove the existence of ghosts. As I've already said, I can't prove they exist. What more can I say?
As to your questions on the previous page, as far as I can make out you said:
I'm a Christian, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist, who's right? Both of us? Neither of us? Who knows? So what's your point? Again you've defeated your own argument.
The one about the boy falling under the bus has been answered.
Would I be a guinea pig? That's been answered.
I've given you my answer to 'moral arbitrators'. That one is over to Waldo now.
I can't see anything more, but if I've missed some, by all means ask again.
As to your questions on the previous page, as far as I can make out you said:
I'm a Christian, future Mrs. Ev is a Buddhist, who's right? Both of us? Neither of us? Who knows? So what's your point? Again you've defeated your own argument.
The one about the boy falling under the bus has been answered.
Would I be a guinea pig? That's been answered.
I've given you my answer to 'moral arbitrators'. That one is over to Waldo now.
I can't see anything more, but if I've missed some, by all means ask again.
I can't see how I'm being evasive! The points I'm raising seem quite clear. You do not know all the variables, whatever you say, and therefore you cannnot possibly replicate the scenario. Given that the boy's survival was clearly remarkable, only an idiot would volunteer to replicate the situation without a full knowledge of the variables and would have to know that all these variables could be preciely replicated. You're essentially demanding someone take part in Russian Roulette and then mocking when they're too sensible to play your game!
As a thought experiment, let's assume you're correct about your bus scenario; it was a bona fide miracle. (I don't for one second think this is the case, but we'll assume it is for the purposes of debate.) What we've examining is a case where a theist God has directly intervened in order to preserve the life of one young boy.
As a thought experiment, let's assume you're correct about your bus scenario; it was a bona fide miracle. (I don't for one second think this is the case, but we'll assume it is for the purposes of debate.) What we've examining is a case where a theist God has directly intervened in order to preserve the life of one young boy.
Questions that must arise:
1) Did the boy, bus driver or any bystander have to offer a prayer for God to intervene? (One assumes that the nature of the accident preculdes the possibility of anyone having the time to do so, but your description of the accident is vague, so I want to be sure.)
2) Given that God has shown that he is prepared to intervene to preserve mortal life, why does he fail to do so more often? Why was this one boy and bus scenario so much more important than say, Shannon Matthews, currently missing from home? We know prayers have been offered for her too.
Why, for example, does God not intervene to save children in US high school massacres? Ok, if we allow that God has to have a prayer before he can act (which is nonsense, but we'll allow it for now), maybe the first few would die, but the others in the next classroom would surely be praying before the gunman burst into their class?
What about where death is not quick, but slow, lingering and painful? How about a children's cancer ward - this child lives, but five others die (or five live and one dies, it matters not). Are some children dying of Leukaemia more worthy of saving than others?
Why is your God so inconsistant? Is he not all powerful? Is he capricious, evil, lazy, inattentive or what? What criteria are used to determine which children live and which die?
1) Did the boy, bus driver or any bystander have to offer a prayer for God to intervene? (One assumes that the nature of the accident preculdes the possibility of anyone having the time to do so, but your description of the accident is vague, so I want to be sure.)
2) Given that God has shown that he is prepared to intervene to preserve mortal life, why does he fail to do so more often? Why was this one boy and bus scenario so much more important than say, Shannon Matthews, currently missing from home? We know prayers have been offered for her too.
Why, for example, does God not intervene to save children in US high school massacres? Ok, if we allow that God has to have a prayer before he can act (which is nonsense, but we'll allow it for now), maybe the first few would die, but the others in the next classroom would surely be praying before the gunman burst into their class?
What about where death is not quick, but slow, lingering and painful? How about a children's cancer ward - this child lives, but five others die (or five live and one dies, it matters not). Are some children dying of Leukaemia more worthy of saving than others?
Why is your God so inconsistant? Is he not all powerful? Is he capricious, evil, lazy, inattentive or what? What criteria are used to determine which children live and which die?
Oh, okay, I've read your 'moral arbiters' question. This is just special pleading.
The answer is no one appointed any of us, but your question wrongly assumes that one needs to be appointed by someone else to be able to make such observations.
If someone in the News section said, 'Brian Blessed is the Republican President of the United States of America', would you look for some approval from someone else before posting to say, 'er, no, he isn't?'
Why should a creationist be able to write, 'Evolution is random' (something posted on here more times than I can possibly be bothered to go back and count) and not be challenged? It's not a matter of opinion at stake here, it's as factually wrong as 'Brian Blessed is the president'.
Why does religion claim a special right to be excused the normal rules of debate and engagement?
The answer is no one appointed any of us, but your question wrongly assumes that one needs to be appointed by someone else to be able to make such observations.
If someone in the News section said, 'Brian Blessed is the Republican President of the United States of America', would you look for some approval from someone else before posting to say, 'er, no, he isn't?'
Why should a creationist be able to write, 'Evolution is random' (something posted on here more times than I can possibly be bothered to go back and count) and not be challenged? It's not a matter of opinion at stake here, it's as factually wrong as 'Brian Blessed is the president'.
Why does religion claim a special right to be excused the normal rules of debate and engagement?
First of all, I am sorry to have jumped in like this in your very intellectual debate. Then I would say that you just can not prove the existence of God by using your given powers. They are your six senses or whatever word you may want to use, History is aware of it that there had been so many people so brainy that they have become legends. But when they tried to find God using their given senses, they went astray. Why can we not understand that our planet Earth is not more than a grain of sand when we look at the universe we have managed to find so far, hence Scientists do agree that this is not the end of it. That means �There are more�. Which we have no clue and will never have. Just like that our knowledge is like a grain of sand compared to God�s knowledge. Few people understand it few do not. I believe that phrase �You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand this� does not fit better anywhere else than in this matter.
"History is aware of it that there had been so many people so brainy that they have become legends. But when they tried to find God using their given senses, they went astray."
Do you mean to suggest that anyone who determines by naturalistic means that there is no God goes mad, or dies or something? I would be surprised if you can support such a contention.
Otherwise, you're just invoking a classic of circular reasoning; 'They didn't find God, but God exists, therefore they must have gone astray'.
Do you mean to suggest that anyone who determines by naturalistic means that there is no God goes mad, or dies or something? I would be surprised if you can support such a contention.
Otherwise, you're just invoking a classic of circular reasoning; 'They didn't find God, but God exists, therefore they must have gone astray'.
Yes - I do mean that they could not find God. Now you can call it whatever, and I am sure by you or anyone else who have unsure views are not going to make God show himself, so it is a waste of time debate. You either believe in it or you do not. Nothing would change. Because as I said before as well that there are still so many things in this world which we people have not proved let alone God. Simple way to find God is just explore yourself. But then again you will not understand that.
Well twisted! I am in awe at your sheer afront!
Not what I agreed with at all.
I agreed with the idea that I wasn't the first to state God had made a bit of an error when he made me.
In that I can't see how it adds anything meaningful to the debate, I don't particularly care, is the answer to your specific question.
Not what I agreed with at all.
I agreed with the idea that I wasn't the first to state God had made a bit of an error when he made me.
In that I can't see how it adds anything meaningful to the debate, I don't particularly care, is the answer to your specific question.
God did not made an error by creating you, You made an error by not following what God says,
A teacher can give you questions and teach you how to solve those questions. After that he would not solve these for you. If you make a mistake that mean you did not follow his instructions. You can not say he told you the wrong answers. However if you do say that, then carry on and look for the right answers by yourself if you could.
A teacher can give you questions and teach you how to solve those questions. After that he would not solve these for you. If you make a mistake that mean you did not follow his instructions. You can not say he told you the wrong answers. However if you do say that, then carry on and look for the right answers by yourself if you could.
