My Challenge to you: Prove there is a God!

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

The very structure of debates makes it difficult for people to change their view without losing face. It is a contest to see which side can win. Emotions rise, strong words are used, dogmatism takes over and calm, logical reasoning cannot function. Often both sides leave as they came—each side convinced that it is right.

Good point. getting into disputes over trifles... :banghead3

 

[Melody]

To those of us who hear God and feel His presence, God exists, but there is no way to prove that to someone else except by how His presence manifests in our lives.

A debate on proof of God's existence seems pointless. I can no more prove God exists, than you can that He does not. Stalemate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you accept one belief without evidence then you have to accept all of them. Non-belief is simply the default (and rational) assumption one must make in the light of no evidence.

All belief systems are based on axioms - including philosophical naturalism. That all true things are evidenced, and evidenced in a way accessible to science, is an assumption. How is this assumption any more rational than the meta-assumption that all true things are knowable?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

The very structure of debates makes it difficult for people to change their view without losing face. It is a contest to see which side can win. Emotions rise, strong words are used, dogmatism takes over and calm, logical reasoning cannot function. Often both sides leave as they came—each side convinced that it is right.

When both sides of the aisle adhere to the rules of logic and structured debate, most arguments will be reduced to the true issues that divide people on that subject. The breakdown comes when people are allowed to ignore the salient points of an argument, or refuse to address them. Far too often (on this site, at least) people on one side of the aisle do not understand even the most basic parts of the discipline of logic - and the only tool left to them is emotion and dogmatism. Oddly, those same people do not appreciate having it pointed out.

Debates are not supposed to resolve every issue. They are a structured method for revealing the true issues on the table - and why a person supports their stance (by providing evidence in defense of their position). If an issue is "resolved", that is a bonus - but it is not necessarily the goal.

TVOR

 

[ThisShouldMakeSense]

When both sides of the aisle adhere to the rules of logic and structured debate, most arguments will be reduced to the true issues that divide people on that subject. The breakdown comes when people are allowed to ignore the salient points of an argument, or refuse to address them. Far too often (on this site, at least) people on one side of the aisle do not understand even the most basic parts of the discipline of logic - and the only tool left to them is emotion and dogmatism. Oddly, those same people do not appreciate having it pointed out.

Debates are not supposed to resolve every issue. They are a structured method for revealing the true issues on the table - and why a person supports their stance (by providing evidence in defense of their position). If an issue is "resolved", that is a bonus - but it is not necessarily the goal.

TVOR

Well said too! :woohoo:

 

[lilithu]

Tawn, you didn't answer my question. You wrote:

Just because God cannot be proven doesnt me he doesnt exist. However, it does mean we shouldn't believe in God until shown otherwise - but we should remain open to the possibility. (emphasis mine)

I am asking you how you got to "should" from a question regarding epistemology. "Should" is used either as a moral imperative, as in "you should be respectful to your elders," or it's used in a prudentiary sense - if you want to achieve x, you should do y - as in, "if you want to have healthy teeth, you should floss every day."

So from where I stand the two options are either you are saying that it is morally wrong for us to believe in God unless God is proven to exist, or you are saying that if we want to achieve x, then we should not believe in God unless God is proven to exist. I assume you mean the latter? And if so, I am asking you what x is. What is it that you assume that we all wish to achieve? Because, first, the assumption may be incorrect, and, second, y may not follow from x.

If you accept one belief without evidence then you have to accept all of them.

Perhaps you feel that you "have to." I, otoh, feel no such compulsion or obligation.

 

[michel]

The very structure of debates makes it difficult for people to change their view without losing face. It is a contest to see which side can win. Emotions rise, strong words are used, dogmatism takes over and calm, logical reasoning cannot function. Often both sides leave as they came—each side convinced that it is right.

Do you know, I don't see debates in the light in which you obviously do. For me, there is np 'losing face' - a debate is, I suppose, superficially to see which side has the greatest suppor - but I can't see winners and losers. I believe that debates are there to give us each the opportunity to develop our own minds by hearing views from others, and questioning our own beliefs.

 

[Krunk]

first of he didnt ask if love exsests he asked if god exsests plz stop beating around the bush and give the man the answer he asked for.

 

[jewscout]

first of he didnt ask if love exsests he asked if god exsests plz stop beating around the bush and give the man the answer he asked for.

well the concept of G-d is, like love, an abstract which can not be necessarily registered by the human sense however, as Pah pointed out, love, and the lack there of, can have both positive and negative influences on us in a very real sense. I believe faith can have a very similar influence on us.
my point is...G-d, or the Divine, exists in as much as the concept of "love"exists...
i think the question of the existance of love, in this case, can be used to answer this question...so i fail to see how it is "beating around the bush"

 

[Krunk]

you did it again. he didnt ask about love or faith or feelings if you have no answer say it.

 

[Tawn]

Tawn, you didn't answer my question. You wrote: I am asking you how you got to "should" from a question regarding epistemology. "Should" is used either as a moral imperative, as in "you should be respectful to your elders," or it's used in a prudentiary sense - if you want to achieve x, you should do y - as in, "if you want to have healthy teeth, you should floss every day."

So from where I stand the two options are either you are saying that it is morally wrong for us to believe in God unless God is proven to exist, or you are saying that if we want to achieve x, then we should not believe in God unless God is proven to exist. I assume you mean the latter? And if so, I am asking you what x is. What is it that you assume that we all wish to achieve? Because, first, the assumption may be incorrect, and, second, y may not follow from x.

Fair points, though a tad pedantic I think. I would hope that you like me are searching for the truth. That therefore is the criteria. You 'should' (in my opinion) think like this to be closest to the truth.

Perhaps you feel that you "have to." I, otoh, feel no such compulsion or obligation.

Aha.. fair enough accept the truth you want to accept. Disregard truth. Follow your happiness. I think its good you can.. but the truth is no subject to our will. Want we 'want' has no relevance to the truth.

 

[Tawn]

All belief systems are based on axioms - including philosophical naturalism. That all true things are evidenced, and evidenced in a way accessible to science, is an assumption. How is this assumption any more rational than the meta-assumption that all true things are knowable?

Youre right. A naturalistic view of the world should be supported by evidence. Im not advocating that the naturalistic view be the 'default' belief... because it is an acceptance of certain observations etc...

 

[michel]

you did it again. he didnt ask about love or faith or feelings if you have no answer say it.

I don't think you understood Jewscout, Krunk; he went to some effort to explain to you that there are various concept - God for one, Love for another for which there is no visible 'evidence'. If you look at it from the other way around though, and look at what life is like without love, then that gives you an indication, and therefore quite a good idea of what love means.

Perhaps you are trying too hard to see God as a man; how would it make you feel if you tried to think of God as 'Good' and of the Devil as 'Bad' ?

You know that there is a lot of 'bad' in the world - when you have seen that, when you see something 'good', you a) realize how 'destructive' bad is, and how good 'good' feels. Does that way of looking at things help you any?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Youre right. A naturalistic view of the world should be supported by evidence. Im not advocating that the naturalistic view be the 'default' belief... because it is an acceptance of certain observations etc...

I'm sorry, but it appeared to me that you were doing precisely that.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Let us ask ourselves this: Why should we be so concerned about proving to another that there is a God? If He is in our own hearts and minds, that is all that matters, no? WE
know there is a God, and we are happy to have Him in our own lives. Why worry about whether another believes in him or not?

If you have Him, if you believe in Him, why do you need to prove to another that He is, or was, there? Knowing yourself that He is with you is enough to know.

Now let us look at another aspect. When we say "Prove to me there is a God." Are you referring to Godm as in the Bible and heaven? Because there are many gods; these do not have to be proven. One may idolise, or worship a person or persons as Gods.

For example, one may claim Nelson Mandela as a god. He has done many wonderful things. So, to the person that believes Mandela is a god, then he has proven himself has he not? He has proven that there is a god, because the person BELIEVES in that god(Mandela in this case)

 

[Krunk]

its stupid to think in black and white. guess what in the middle there is a gray area that most people reside. why can you be your own god? why can you make you feel better? you relize that is what you are doing but someone put a name on it and said it comes from someone or something else. this is self destroying. look at it like this you create a system. now this system starts to depend on another system. ultimately the first system becomes weaker because it can not depend on its self. this thinking is ruining mankind. now the world is full of followers.

 

[jewscout]

you did it again. he didnt ask about love or faith or feelings if you have no answer say it.

well actually by asking about the existance of G-d he is asking about faith...

i guess then that means if you can't prove it is there that makes it a lie right Krunk?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

its stupid to think in black and white. ... this thinking is ruining mankind. now the world is full of followers.

Oy veh - the sky is falling!

Krunk, for a nontheist you're irritatingly preachy. :tsk:

 

[Malus 12:9]

KrunK, mankind has survived thousands of years thinking in Black or White, when do we expect the grey to have effect?

 

[Krunk]

you are they grey i am the grey....we are all grey putting people on differnt sides is what creats conflict. anyone watch startrek?? the humans meet a rice like there own. but there are superior in every way. why because they relized logic is the answer.