How to prove God.

[an anarchist]

Xavier Graham SA, do you have confidence that God will save you if you jump off a 10 story building?

The reason why it is ironic you ask, is because Satan told Jesus Christ to jump off a cliff to prove that he was God. Jesus said that would be inappropriate, so I assume it would be inappropriate for me as well.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't need to know which one, he'll tell you himself when he meets you. I believe it's the 12th Successor of Mohammad (s), but you let me know if you pray and when you see him, who he is and what he showed you, if you are given permission to do so (permission to reveal it).

I no longer pray because I never found anything through prayer except me talking to myself.

It means we require perception, think about you seeing yourself.

Yes, eyes do that. So?

We have value, that value is through actions, and our actions form part of who we are, that requires judgment, any imperfection in judgment, and who are no longer objective value, but illusionary value.

I disagree. We are the producers and determiners of value, from what I can see. The value isn't illusory *because* we judge it to be valuable.

I don't think there is value outside of humans saying there is value.

Reflect in the signs over yourself and if that's not enough, it should suffice you that God is a witness to who we are and what we are, to remind you require him to exist.

Huh? Why would there have to be a witness at all? Why should I require him to exist? Isn't that simply self-delusion?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

How did you verify these experiences?

 

[Polymath257]

It is true that when opening one own being to the spiritual life, one also do see the suffering in this world a heck of a lot more clear, and that in it self is very difficult to see, and if possible i would help everyone i could so they can have a better life. i am a realist too so i know i can only do a little, but as long i do it, it is better than not doing anything.

And I agree. Some things that are technically falsehoods can be psychologically useful. That makes them *useful*, not *true*.

 

[leroy]

What evidence?



I always do that. And it's been a looooooong time since I've heard an original argument.
They have been done to death.



Been there, done that.



The burden of proof is on the one who presents the argument.
One of the reasons the arguments fail, is because they tend to not being able to meet that burden.



This is just meaningless talk.



This also is just meaningless talk.

You are more then welcome to go create a thread with your favorite argument that you find the most convincing.

I bet 100 bucks that
1. I heard it before
2. it's been done to death
3. there's a wiki article listing all the problems with it and the many ways in which it fails

That is exactly what I mean, you already made your mind, you already have a barrier .

But I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt

What is wrong with say the FT argument?

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.

C: Therefore its due to design.


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/formulating-the-fine-tuning-argument/

The burden of proof is on the one who presents the argument.
One of the reasons the arguments fail, is because they tend to not being able to meet that burden.

You hit the nail in the coffin , that is exactly my point.

You are not supposed to be in “defensive mode” you are supposed to be open and with a genuine interest in finding the truth.

Avoiding the burden proof might be a good debate tactic, but is useless whent it comes to finding the truth.

What you are supposed to do is look at all (or some) of the explanations that have been offered for the FT of the universe and determine the one that you consider the best based on criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with previous}us knowledge etc.

 

[McBell]

Either that, or the claim is false. That seems like the more likely option.

I suspect the one making the claim will blame you for not coming to the same conclusion from the process as they did...

 

[Spirit of Light]

And I agree. Some things that are technically falsehoods can be psychologically useful. That makes them *useful*, not *true*.

I "think" i start to understand your view a little better, and i understand my spiritual belief may never be understood by those who has not experienced the same i do through sufism, and that is something i can live with

 

[McBell]

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

No, it doesn't.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.

False Dichotomy.

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.

Bold empty claim

C: Therefore its due to design.

bold empty claim.

 

[leroy]

An open mind doesn't mean suspending objectivity and reason, yes? Making a competent conclusion requires adequate facts and few assumptions.

If God exists and you are openly and honestly looking for God, he will guide you to the evidence that would convince you.

But if you have a mind set of “I already made up my mind and nothing will ever convince that God exists, then not even God can do anything about it.

 

[leroy]

Taking it as given that you can carry on a conversation with God is not "looking at thr evidence with an open mind."

Ok, and then don’t pray if you don’t want.

Just make a self commitment of looking at the evidence with an open mind and see what happens.

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

No, it doesn't.

In this context what is the meaning of FT? what does it means to be FT for life?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For example a good first step would be that next time you encounter an argument for God in this forum, actually make an honest effort, try to understand the argument, and try to spot the strengths and weaknesses of the argument. Try to identify the premises of the argument, and then try to determine if you find them more plausibly true than wrong.

Already done decades ago. That's what critical thinker does. The cases for gods are the same handful of arguments over and again, all of them already refuted. There's nothing left to consider unless somebody comes up with a new argument.

The OP's so-called proof of God was, "Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you." Didn't work. Another proof refuted.

Incidentally, the critical thinker never suspends skepticism. He may suspend disbelief to test an idea as I did with Christianity in the early seventies, but he should never suspend skepticism. Critical thinking is our only defense against accumulating false beliefs, and it begins with skepticism, or the insistence that an idea not be accepted as correct on faith or authority. If suspending skepticism, which isn't really possible for an experienced critical thinker, is the only possible way to believe an idea, then that is not an idea he wants in his knowledge set. As soon as one informs him that he has to suspend skepticism to believe something, he loses interest in whatever it is that can only be believed this way.

Do it with an open mind.

I think that the believer and the rational skeptic have a different understanding of what this phrase means. Your suggested suspending skepticism. Why would the critical thinker ever do that? That is the fundamental principle of critical thought - that no idea should be accepted before investigating the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, and not believing more than is supported, always tentatively, always ready to adjust ones estimate of the likeliness of a proposition being correct up or down as more supporting or contradicting evidence arises. Once one has seen the merit to this approach, he has no reason to decide what is true about the world any other way. Open-mindedness never suspends skepticism and critical evaluation when evaluating a claim.

What the critical thinker means when he says he will consider a proposition open-mindedly is that he will consider the idea and any attendant evidence and argument dispassionately, that is, with a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. Rejecting a flawed argument is not closed-mindedness as the theist often implies. He presents his case and its flawed arguments, which are consistently rejected, and writes that off to closed-mindedness. It's as if he is trying to tell me that 2 + 2 = 5, I evaluate his argument and reject it, he presents his error thirty more times, it is never accepted because critical thinking rejects it, he tells me that I need to relax my standards for belief if I am to believe what he does, and that if I don't, I'm stubborn and closed-minded.

Marine biologists refer to plankton - the living things unable to choose their path in the water, going where the currents go. A less well-known word is the nekton, the living things that swim, walk, sidle - whatever - to get to where they want to be. They choose their direction. I liken these two ways of thinking - faith-based and critical thinking - and the people that engage in them to these concepts. If you're a faith-based thinker, your mind goes where the ideas that you have accepted uncritically take you. It needn't be religious thought. If you believe that an election was stolen not because you examined the evidence properly and found the claim well-supported, but because somebody else wants you to believe it and you don't have the skills t defend yourself from that kind of manipulation. That's being intellectual plankton.

It doesn't happen to the skilled critical thinker. He has charted a path toward verifiably correct ideas, and cannot be whisked off by the current carrying the plankton. And this seems to distress the plankton, who seem to resent seeing the nekton charting it own course rather than floating off with them.

 

[McBell]

In this context what is the meaning of FT? what does it means to be FT for life?

Since it is your story, you define your terms.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is wrong with say the FT argument?

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.

C: Therefore its due to design.

P3 has not been shown to be true. You have ruled out the multiverse hypothesis, which creates multiple copies of all possible universe including this one by chance. That's a logical error, a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that a fined tuned universe points to a god, although that is one possibility.

Here's an interesting idea: Why would an omnipotent god be constrained to fine tuning? This is from somewhere on the Internet. I features Yahweh having a chat with a mentor:

Yahwey: "They're going to ask, "Who created those finely tuned laws of nature?" The design of the universe itself will be the evidence of my existence and nature."

Yahweh's mentor: "Will it? The question of fine tuning will be inevitable indeed, because each and every unknown that was attributed to your doing will eventually be discovered to be nature's doing. The question itself, however, will lead to an infinite regress. Why would you need to finely tune the laws of nature unless you are being restricted by some other laws beyond your control? And who created the laws that govern the necessity for god to fine tune the laws of nature? If these laws dictated the nature of your creation, then how could you be called omnipotent? How could you be called god if your creation could only be created in one kind of way? If the laws of nature could only be one kind of way to permit life, and the universe runs all on its own, then what does it need with a god? Because if that's the case, you didn't actually design anything. You merely followed a set of instructions. Whose instructions? "​

 

[leroy]

Already done decades ago. That's what critical thinker does. The cases for gods are the same handful of arguments over and again, all of them already refuted. There's nothing left to consider unless somebody comes up with a new argument.

The OP's so-called proof of God was, "Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you." Didn't work. Another proof refuted.

Incidentally, the critical thinker never suspends skepticism. He may suspend disbelief to test an idea as I did with Christianity in the early seventies, but he should never suspend skepticism. Critical thinking is our only defense against accumulating false beliefs, and it begins with skepticism, or the insistence that an idea not be accepted as correct on faith or authority. If suspending skepticism, which isn't really possible for an experienced critical thinker, is the only possible way to believe an idea, then that is not an idea he wants in his knowledge set. As soon as one informs him that he has to suspend skepticism to believe something, he loses interest in whatever it is that can only be believed this way.



I think that the believer and the rational skeptic have a different understanding of what this phrase means. Your suggested suspending skepticism. Why would the critical thinker ever do that? That is the fundamental principle of critical thought - that no idea should be accepted before investigating the quality and quantity of supporting evidence, and not believing more than is supported, always tentatively, always ready to adjust ones estimate of the likeliness of a proposition being correct up or down as more supporting or contradicting evidence arises. Once one has seen the merit to this approach, he has no reason to decide what is true about the world any other way. Open-mindedness never suspends skepticism and critical evaluation when evaluating a claim.

What the critical thinker means when he says he will consider a proposition open-mindedly is that he will consider the idea and any attendant evidence and argument dispassionately, that is, with a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. Rejecting a flawed argument is not closed-mindedness as the theist often implies. He presents his case and its flawed arguments, which are consistently rejected, and writes that off to closed-mindedness. It's as if he is trying to tell me that 2 + 2 = 5, I evaluate his argument and reject it, he presents his error thirty more times, it is never accepted because critical thinking rejects it, he tells me that I need to relax my standards for belief if I am to believe what he does, and that if I don't, I'm stubborn and closed-minded.

Marine biologists refer to plankton - the living things unable to choose their path in the water, going where the currents go. A less well-known word is the nekton, the living things that swim, walk, sidle - whatever - to get to where they want to be. They choose their direction. I liken these two ways of thinking - faith-based and critical thinking - and the people that engage in them to these concepts. If you're a faith-based thinker, your mind goes where the ideas that you have accepted uncritically take you. It needn't be religious thought. If you believe that an election was stolen not because you examined the evidence properly and found the claim well-supported, but because somebody else wants you to believe it and you don't have the skills t defend yourself from that kind of manipulation. That's being intellectual plankton.

It doesn't happen to the skilled critical thinker. He has charted a path toward verifiably correct ideas, and cannot be whisked off by the current carrying the plankton. And this seems to distress the plankton, who seem to resent seeing the nekton charting it own course rather than floating off with them.

With “open mind” I simply mean “remove your confirmation biases as much as possible”

just look at the evidence without presuposing theism nor atheism,

 

[Link]

I no longer pray because I never found anything through prayer except me talking to myself.

I am not asking you to believe, I am asking you to mock God to send you proofs, but with some love and ready state to accept miracles if shown.

And you are being obtuse talking about physical eyes. Physical eyes don't see the value of love, compassion, justice, etc.

You deciding your own value would make it subjective and not true. You don't get to declare yourself the most important person in the world and then it's automatically becomes true, nor determine your rank and say you are the best, and it becomes true.

Think about it.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not asking you to believe, I am asking you to mock God to send you proofs, but with some love and ready state to accept miracles if shown.

And you are being obtuse talking about physical eyes. Physical eyes don't see the value of love, compassion, justice, etc.

Love is an emotion. It is 'seen' by actions. Compassion is another emotion, also seen through actions. Justice is a convention: we use our sense of fairness (an intuition) to decide if we like the outcome.

Nothing beyond the physical is required for any of these. They are human emotions or conventions.

You deciding your own value would make it subjective and not true.

This is where I disagree. it would be true *and* subjective. But that's the nature of values.

You don't get to declare yourself the most important person in the world and then it's automatically becomes true, nor determine your rank and say you are the best, and it becomes true.

True. other people get a vote as well. But it is ultimately the judgement of people that decides the answer.

Think about it.

OK, I did. I seem to have reached a different conclusion from you.

 

[Polymath257]

With “open mind” I simply mean “remove your confirmation biases as much as possible”

just look at the evidence without presuposing theism nor atheism,

Exactly. And, when doing so, and using only the evidence, it seems that the conclusion there is a God is unjustified.

 

[leroy]

Since it is your story, you define your terms.

see @TagliatelliMonster
That is exactly my point, this fanatic and extreme atheist decided that the universe is not FT despite the fact that he admittedly doesn’t know what I mean with FT………this is a text book example of confirmation bias, and this is the type of bias that you should avoid,+

Someone who is honestly and sincerely searching for the truth would have asked “what do you mean by FT” before deciding that the universe is not FT



--
FT simply means that if the some of values (say the forcé of gravity) would have been slightly different, life would have been impossible. Which is not controversial scientists generally agree with this premise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

see @TagliatelliMonster
That is exactly my point, this fanatic and extreme atheist decided that the universe is not FT despite the fact that he admittedly doesn’t know what I mean with FT………this is a text book example of confirmation bias, and this is the type of bias that you should avoid,+

Rejection of the FT argument is not predicated on knowing what your idea of FT is. It is not confirmation bias to reject FT while noting that your idea of it is unknown. That is just stating a fact.

If you had some adjustment to FT that would stabilize it in favor of acceptance, then you should state that and support it. Instead, you do what you typically do. Mischaracterize everything and try to get others to support your mischaracterization for you.

Someone who is honestly and sincerely searching for the truth would have asked “what do you mean by FT” before deciding that the universe is not FT

Someone honestly and sincerely searching for the truth would state what they mean by FT and provide the support for their view. I find it typical of you to claim something and then change it up to something else during the course of the discussion. Just dragging this on endlessly in an effort to win by attrition seems to be your main goal.

--
FT simply means that if the some of values (say the forcé of gravity) would have been slightly different, life would have been impossible. Which is not controversial scientists generally agree with this premise.

It is not known that life would be impossible under different conditions.