Proof of God page 2 (locked)

610 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

Lol I love reading these topics. Answering OP – the kind of proof you are looking for does not exist.

So in other words, God is fake… Right?

However there is proof that God does exist – religion.

That’s not proof. At all.

Pretty much the same as saying I believe in the concept of time travel (not that I do) but everyone can say its madness or whatever but if i believe it then that’s all that counts. And hey, whats to say it doesn’t exist.

Modern physics?

To sum it up, this thread is pretty pointless, not going to get anywhere but cause arguments.

It has as much of a point as most other threads like it.

 
Flag Post

I find it funny how people treat faith as an admirable quality. I find it to be one of the most disgusting characteristics one person can have. It completely destroys critical thinking and skepticism.

 
Flag Post

June bugs, they can’t seem to live without one. Have you seen how stupid they are?

 
Flag Post

BB
I see that you are a very fanatical believer in denialism, which leads to abhorring politeness. :DDD

tenco
Modern physics only says “we don’t know HOW to time travel, and what would happen if we did”, not exactly “it’s physically impossible”.
Cue: “atom = indivisible” and “science is always improving, some modern stuff becoming obsolete”.
And the still existing (re)search for “particles faster than light” aka tachyons.

mr_e
Sure, except this includes, like, everyone.
We ALL believe in unprovable stuff like “friendship”, “honesty”, “politeness”, “honor”, “love”, “politics” etc etc etc. :DDD

 
Flag Post

We ALL believe in unprovable stuff like “friendship”, “honesty”, “politeness”, “honor”, “love”, “politics”

They are not unprovable. These labels objectively exist, but can be subjectively placed upon things/others.

 
Flag Post

DR
Pardon?
I want you to scientifically prove me that politeness exists.
Cause what is polite for a troll, is not so for a non-troll.
Or love – why would people have to “prove they love someone”, if it was an objective thing?
(A typically female request, which implies that saying “I love you” is insufficient – but this shouldn’t be so with an objective thing.)
Etc etc etc.
These and similar concepts do NOT “exist”, except in OUR MINDS.
So, “scientifically” they are as UNPROVABLE as religion is.
It’s stupid to argue on this…

 
Flag Post

I see that you are a very fanatical believer in denialism

I’m a “fanatical” understander of skepticism.
Also, denialism? Isn’t that what religion is all about? Besides, I would love if, say, ghosts turned out to be true. You think I would want to talk to my deceased mother and father? You think I would enjoy having a life after I died? Yet, I still heavily doubt it is true, because I’m a critical thinker. Religion is completely based around denialism. “You will eventually die. You are insignificant to the universe. You have no purpose.” – all that is uncomfortable truth, and religion is a way to cover that up – that’s exactly why people are so adherent of religion. It’s comfortable.

Modern physics only says “we don’t know HOW to time travel, and what would happen if we did”, not exactly “it’s physically impossible”.

It would require going faster than the speed of light, which every single experiment and mathematical model shows that it’s most likely (and I say 99,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%) not possible.

atom = indivisible

But then again, sub-atomical particles.

And the still existing (re)search for “particles faster than light” aka tachyons.

It is only an hypothesis. It describes what would happen if a particle traveled faster than light. We have no evidence of it whatsoever, though we try.

We ALL believe in unprovable stuff like “friendship”, “honesty”, “politeness”, “honor”, “love”, “politics” etc etc etc. :DDD

What?? Are you really trying to compare concepts to material stuff? Those are merely labels created by us to place upon stuff. Also, (e.g.) love doesn’t actually exist nor we believe it does, as it is merely a chemical chain reaction that makes our brain simulate a feeling that we labeled as love. It’s all in the mind, and we know that – …just like God?~
When we say we’re in love, we’re merely saying “I’m feeling X, which is labeled as love”, and not “love exists like G-d LOL!!!!!”
You seem like the retarded group that call Mathematics a religion. Holy shit that is retarded.

So, “scientifically” they are as UNPROVABLE as religion is.

That is flawed on so many levels I don’t even know how to begin attacking it. You got to a new level of retardation.

 
Flag Post

I want you to scientifically prove me that politeness exists.
Cause what is polite for a troll, is not so for a non-troll.

These two statements are unrelated, and it shows that you do not understand the difference you’re required to know to have this question answered.

Politeness is a label. It is one you can place upon anyone you think is polite (and refrain from using it on those you don’t think are polite). It is a fact that politeness exists, check the dictionary. It is proven that people actually use the concept of politeness. This serves as evidence the label exists.

Or love – why would people have to “prove they love someone”, if it was an objective thing?
(A typically female request, which implies that saying “I love you” is insufficient – but this shouldn’t be so with an objective thing.)

I have no idea what you’re saying here. Labels can be placed upon others, but some require a bit of argumentation, such as love.

It’s stupid to argue on this…

You are the one who brought it up. I was the one who corrected you.

 
Flag Post

BB

“You will eventually die. You are insignificant to the universe. You have no purpose.”

This is the SUBJECTIVE denial of one’s purpose.
Basically, this is the shortest way to become a criminal, who cares not for his HUMAN purposes.
“I am worthless” easily leads to “everyone’s life is worthless”, cause “who says I’m worse than others – and since MY life is pointless”…
Only “religiously-natural” HUMAN rights (yes, COPIED by the democratic attitude, but it historically grew up on the very same religiously-cultured soil) are the surest way to a SOCIETY devoid of anarchy.
Are you suggesting that we “sulk in a corner” (DR’s favorite words) – or rather create and procreate?

Sure, “ATOM”…

You’re DENSE.
EXACTLY that – the “atom=indivisible” is the most obvious example of how science CHANGES over time.
What was a 100% SURETY yesterday, becomes IGNORANCE tomorrow.

So, if it’s “surely false/stupid” – WHY do scientists still TRY to find them?
You seem to ignore this obvious self-contradiction.
Or rather, this is what I call “scientific dogmatism”.
(DR, do you see it now?)

Um, is G-d “material” for you?
Despite all of you constantly referring to “supernatural” being clearly non-material or conceptual or whatever.

Yup, and you got a new level of politeness.
Achievement unlocked: Be rude 5 times in a row.
:DDD

 
Flag Post

Interesting observation:
Dogmatism VS Theoretization.

 
Flag Post

What? How did the discussion went from discussing denialism to how what I think can lead to crimes (Protip: It doesn’t) – ARE YOU TROLLING?

EXACTLY that – the “atom=indivisible” is the most obvious example of how science CHANGES over time.

What? Science never EVER claimed to know that the atom is indivisible. It was theoretization, a fairly obvious for that matter. “There must be an indivisible piece of the universe.” – that’s it. Then we built models around it that worked, however we NEVER claimed to have a model that is 100% correct. Even our current advanced model isn’t 100%, however it is a great representation of reality.
“OH BUT THERE IS A 0,0000000000000000000001% CHANCE THAT THE CURRENT MODEL IS FAKE” – well, sure, but what is your evidence? Why would we trust in the infinitely smaller chance, when every evidence points to something else? God existence doesn’t even have a single EVIDENCE that you guys could get the idea of this existence from.

So, if it’s “surely false/stupid” – WHY do scientists still TRY to find them?

Because it just might exist. Science tests everything, we are not BLIND like RELIGION. Tachyons go completely against EVERYTHING we know about physics, but what it if does exist? We are trying to find A SINGLE piece of evidence, just in case.
Science looks at ALL evidence and derives a conclusion from it. Religion creates a “conclusion”, tries to find evidence for it and ignores evidence against it.

Um, is G-d “material” for you?

It may not be material, but his actions on Earth sure are. Otherwise he would have no effect on us. From these effects, we can know that he exists (or remain in agnosticism, like right now, since there is no evidence).

 
Flag Post

BB
“Because it just might exist” – but “G-d CAN’T exist”, even though BOTH are “anti-scientific” TODAY.
Anyways, I don’t see any point in OUR discussion, for personal reasons of not wanting to waste my time and nerves.
(Note: This doesn’t imply “every discussion I ever had here” in the least. Quite the contrary.)

 
Flag Post

You didn’t reply to my post where I showed you that politeness exists.

 
Flag Post

DR
You’re right. :D
Missed it somehow.
NOW answering.
Ehem, “scientifically” is the key requirement.
I don’t see any “evidence” for “labels”.
Or, the other way around, I can LABEL “the true immanent-and-transcendent real-and-only cause of our existence, that some people are personally familiar with” to mean “G-d”.
I would be somewhat right (or I just need to extend the label till the next page), yet this would be the same what you said about politeness.
But for you, politeness exists, G-d doesn’t.
I see no actual difference, though.
Why do I hear the word “semantics” creeping nearby..?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

DR
You’re right. :D
Missed it somehow.
NOW answering.
Ehem, “scientifically” is the key requirement.
I don’t see any “evidence” for “labels”.
Or, the other way around, I can LABEL “the true immanent-and-transcendent real-and-only cause of our existence, that some people are personally familiar with” to mean “G-d”.
I would be somewhat right (or I just need to extend the label till the next page), yet this would be the same what you said about politeness.
But for you, politeness exists, G-d doesn’t.
I see no actual difference, though.
Why do I hear the word “semantics” creeping nearby..?

I can see ‘politeness’ in many of the actions that people do. “Politeness” is observable, there may be varying extremes of what some people would classify as politeness, but everybody can attest that they know what it is, people practice it everyday, just as we know what anger is. Anger exists, politness exists…both observable human behavioural traits.

Would you say ‘anger’ is just a word? No. Anger is real. Politness is real.

 
Flag Post

FWW
Same as “G-d”, actually.
VERY much the same.
We all refer to different (thus, subjective) ideas when we use that term, yet we all KNOW what it means (for us).
I see no difference between this and the subjective ideas of politeness or honor, neither is physical.
And “behavior” (as an opinion-based definition) isn’t physical (or objective) either, cause different people can have opposite opinions on THE SAME behavior (of the same person at the same time, cue watching a movie).
Someone isn’t “polite” without being considered such by someone.
It’s all in the mind, like I said before.
So, if this can be accepted, why not accept religious ideas too?
(This wasn’t about “proofs” of G-d, but rather about “we accept lots of unscientific ideas, so why this one is singled out”?)

 
Flag Post

I don’t see any “evidence” for “labels”.

What? You are directly observing both the concept and labelling. It is objectively defined to mean something. People differ in opinion in whether or not someone is polite, but they all agree that there are various levels of politeness. (If you disagree politeness exists, you have the wrong definition of “existence”.)

Or, the other way around, I can LABEL “the true immanent-and-transcendent real-and-only cause of our existence, that some people are personally familiar with” to mean “G-d”.

No. “God” isn’t a label. The (primary) cause of our existence is uncertain and what you mean to say is that you call it God, instead of label it as such.

So, if this can be accepted, why not accept religious ideas too?

Because, again, God isn’t a label. It has a very clear definition and that isn’t something we have observed thus far. We have seen the concept being used to describe something which is impossible to observe. “Politeness”, however, is a concept used by people to label certain actions. It can be observed which general idea is followed, and that everyone understands it as generally the same thing.

 
Flag Post

Whatever.
I’m really tired of this circling around…
I do wonder, why I haven’t seen ANY other posters actually DISCUSSING these topics (apart from trolls, those who debate with myself, and those who say but a word or two)…

 
Flag Post

From what I’ve seen, most have somewhat the same viewpoints as I do, but aren’t as patient as I am. And I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
Same as “G-d”, actually.
VERY much the same.
We all refer to different (thus, subjective) ideas when we use that term, yet we all KNOW what it means (for us).
I see no difference between this and the subjective ideas of politeness or honor, neither is physical.
And “behavior” (as an opinion-based definition) isn’t physical (or objective) either, cause different people can have opposite opinions on THE SAME behavior (of the same person at the same time, cue watching a movie).
Someone isn’t “polite” without being considered such by someone.
It’s all in the mind, like I said before.
So, if this can be accepted, why not accept religious ideas too?
(This wasn’t about “proofs” of G-d, but rather about “we accept lots of unscientific ideas, so why this one is singled out”?)

I think you missed the point. Anger, politeness…these things exist, they are observable, they can be witnessed.
G-d can not be observable, witnessed, if so then we’d have evidence of Him.

Everybody understands politeness, hell I’m even sure you do. Why? Because you can BE polite, it is an action. It is something that can be performed and observed…the results may not be what you wanted, but we can perform the action of ‘politness’. It is a concrete thing, as I have repeated again and again, an observable thing. If you are trying to say that your God is observable, then provide me with that proof. That is what this thread is about.

 
Flag Post

Which leads to a question:
WHO and WHY keeps making/necroing these threads?
Definitely NOT me, like you can see…

 
Flag Post

there had to be someone who made everything in the universe because all the other theories dont explain how the first particle of matter was made, because nothing cannot create something, so the only reasonable explanation is God.

 
Flag Post

Nah, it’s all “natural”.
Though we have no clue as of its “nature”, but it MUST be natural.
(Sarcasm dripping through…)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by zamroc8:

there had to be someone who made everything in the universe because all the other theories dont explain how the first particle of matter was made,

Source?

And hell, it could be cyclical, a singularity bursts, the resulting universe is born and expands, then it exentually starts to compress again back into a singularity.

because nothing cannot create something,

Well there are a few hypotheses that are saying otherwise.

so the only reasonable explanation is God.

… How?

 
Flag Post

because nothing cannot create something, so the only reasonable explanation is God.

But then again, who created God? This conclusion stems from the premise that something cannot be created from nothing, and if it was true we’d get into an infinite backwards loop. Who designed the inventor of the generator of the creator of the universe – and who made the designer?
Physicists have come up with scientifically valid ways that the universe could have created itself (it basically requires intensive knowledge of how weird the sub-atomic world is), thus removing the necessity of an original creator. This obviously isn’t proven to have happened, but it’s proven to be possible, thus it is not necessary that there is an original creator, however it is still possible.