Methods for proving God's existence?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Jagged .......Dude. Then whats the point of proving things? Do you mean things should just be considered false until proven true?

Innocent until proven guilty runs along the same lines.... so yeah.... I'd agree to that.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Praxius Innocent until proven guilty runs along the same lines.... so yeah.... I'd agree to that.

No way. This is a logical error:
Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


We should assume things are unknown until proven either false or true. Furthermore, there are degrees of certainty. We can say we think a thing seems true, but we are not certain.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Praxius Then again, he could have just been an alien with a lot more technology and intelligence then us and decided to show us some guidelines and we just took it one step further and claimed he was God...... then the alien realized he screwed up and then took off..... which is why we haven't seen or heard from "God" in a while.

It doesn't really make a difference since my beliefs are provisional anyhow. If God shows up tomorrow and convinces me that he's real through objective evidence, I'll believe God exists. If it turns out he's an alien later, my beliefs will change. I just go where the evidence leads. Currently, there is no evidence for God, hence I don't believe. It's simple really.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Jagged I thought 'irrational' would have to be the core of all 'proofs' of God's existence. Otherwise the proof would undermine faith, and the importance of God would dissapear, correct?

Not in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, faith without reason, faith without support, is a worthless faith. Faith is supposed to be believing where you cannot prove, not believing in opposition to what you can prove or just picking something out of a hat and demanding it be true.

If that's all you've got, then it's no better than believing in unicorns and Santa Claus.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Capt. Chaos No way. This is a logical error: Denying the antecedent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We should assume things are unknown until proven either false or true. Furthermore, there are degrees of certainty. We can say we think a thing seems true, but we are not certain.

How I wish more people would understand that.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Cephus It doesn't really make a difference since my beliefs are provisional anyhow. If God shows up tomorrow and convinces me that he's real through objective evidence, I'll believe God exists. If it turns out he's an alien later, my beliefs will change. I just go where the evidence leads. Currently, there is no evidence for God, hence I don't believe. It's simple really.

There is no evidence for alien life forms. Do you believe they exist?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Cephus Not in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, faith without reason, faith without support, is a worthless faith. Faith is supposed to be believing where you cannot prove, not believing in opposition to what you can prove or just picking something out of a hat and demanding it be true. If that's all you've got, then it's no better than believing in unicorns and Santa Claus.

I agree. The two complement each other, keeping each from overstepping its bounds. Rationality without faith is inhuman and faith without logic is worse.

By the way, all atheists believe in something without an ounce of proof

[Praxius]

Quote by: Captain Chaos There is no evidence for alien life forms. Do you believe they exist?

OooooooooooOOOOOooooo.... I wanna answer that one, lol.

I think they do, because we already have proven there are more then just our planet in the universe.... and due to the large estimation as to just how many planets are out there, to consider our planet is the only one that can sustain life is naive. Now, what those aliens are and how far along they are in development compared to us, remains to be seen.

We should assume things are unknown until proven either false or true. Furthermore, there are degrees of certainty. We can say we think a thing seems true, but we are not certain.

Then the "Innocent until proven guilty" method is wrong in our justice system. Because if they are innocent until proven guilty, yet we should assume things are unknown until proven, then how would you get proper suspects and get justice to work properly? :eek:

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Praxius Then the "Innocent until proven guilty" method is wrong in our justice system. Because if they are innocent until proven guilty, yet we should assume things are unknown until proven, then how would you get proper suspects and get justice to work properly?

It's wrong because a person shouldn't be on trial for their guilt. The evidence should be found before they are even accused.

Ever see a person criminally convicted of a crime by a jury of their peers based on solely circumstantial evidence? It's an insult to justice.

I'd rather have a serial killer walk the streets because they can't find conclusive evidence than an innocent boy jailed because they found enough ignorant bumpkins to cry about his mothers mangled face and ignore the fact that he would have had to drive 90 miles an hour for a solid 6 hours and still have seconds to spare to murder his father and maim his mother.

Yeah, our justice system is f**ked.

And yes, our justice system is, in a fashion, based on the argument from ignorance.

Because it's just as easy to say "innocent until proven guilty" as it is to say "guilty until proven innocent". It's what happens when the police investigate a suspect and not a crime.

---

Along those same lines, people who share that they believe one way or the other about God because of lack of proof are fine. When they try to insist on it being true for all of us, they are asshat f**ksticks that really need to sit down with a philosopher, a scientist, and a logician before they spout that kind of nonsense again.

If you don't believe in God because you haven't seen proof, that's fine.

But there is a difference between saying "I don't believe in God" and "God does not exist" The first is relative and the second is absolute. Only a blazing fool does the second.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Can I quote you on that?

[Fonceai]

You can quote whatever you choose.

Which part do you want to quote?

[Praxius]

Along those same lines, people who share that they believe one way or the other about God because of lack of proof are fine. When they try to insist on it being true for all of us, they are asshat f**ksticks that really need to sit down with a philosopher, a scientist, and a logician before they spout that kind of nonsense again.

Did you ever see that fat lady on "Wife Swap" who ended up living with a bunch of "Non-Chrstians?" Yeah.... that was interesting.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Already put it as my signature Fonce, I'll put your name under it

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Praxius Did you ever see that fat lady on "Wife Swap" who ended up living with a bunch of "Non-Chrstians?" Yeah.... that was interesting.

I did see it.

I think what makes that, and these types of arguments, so interesting for people is that we all, at some level, know they can't be won. We all know that there is no ephemeral answer. So the banality of arguing true or false is entertaining.

That's why I argue Unknown. Can't go wrong.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Praxius OooooooooooOOOOOooooo.... I wanna answer that one, lol. I think they do, because we already have proven there are more then just our planet in the universe.... and due to the large estimation as to just how many planets are out there, to consider our planet is the only one that can sustain life is naive. Now, what those aliens are and how far along they are in development compared to us, remains to be seen. Then the "Innocent until proven guilty" method is wrong in our justice system. Because if they are innocent until proven guilty, yet we should assume things are unknown until proven, then how would you get proper suspects and get justice to work properly? :eek:

Innocent until proven guilty is a means of avoiding government abuse of the people. It is not a proper method of logic. Interestingly, some apologists use this approach toward the Bible. They say the Bible should be considered innocent (true) until proven guilty. Since you can never actually totally prove the Bible is false somewhere, it is therefore then assumed innocent, and thus true, and thus the word of god. This is manipulative reasoning at its worst.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Innocent until proven guilty is a means of avoiding government abuse of the people. It is not a proper method of logic. Interestingly, some apologists use this approach toward the Bible. They say the Bible should be considered innocent (true) until proven guilty. Since you can never actually totally prove the Bible is false somewhere, it is therefore then assumed innocent, and thus true, and thus the word of god. This is manipulative reasoning at its worst.

Kinda like Extreme Muslim..... "Believe us or Die!"

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Praxius Kinda like Extreme Muslim..... "Believe us or Die!"

Kinda...

But, if you have the force to back it up, that method can be quite persuasive.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Captain Chaos There is no evidence for alien life forms. Do you believe they exist?

Not until I see evidence, nope. It's certainly possible, perhaps even statistically likely, but I don't think for one second that they're coming here, if they're out there at all.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary By the way, all atheists believe in something without an ounce of proof

Only if you have no clue what atheism is.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Atheism is the belief that there is no God, a truly logical person allows for the possibility of God because there is no proof He does not exist.

And if you don't believe in anything without proof, then you shouldn't believe that humans should not be slaves, unless you can provide logical proof that all men should be free