Can you prove Reality, exists (without refering to reality)?

[Gadarene]

I have a question for you and something to ponder.... I noticed your an atheist therefore you understand simple science/s. Isaac Newtons third law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING has an equal but opposite reaction. Science is based upon this principle so denying what I am about to say will violate everything you stand for, thus self defeating so bear with me. If Isaac Newtons law stands true then we can conclude that the physical has an opposite, and what is the opposite of the physical ? The spiritual ! Therefore it must exist !!

God bless you

Newton's 3rd only applies to forces

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

Newton's 3rd only applies to forces

Look up the word force, and look at the definition in its entirety

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Look up the word force, and look at the definition in its entirety

Look up the word "equivocation".

 

[variant]

You make it out as if its really complicated (and I somehow "don't understand it")

when you ask for evidence of God, but you accept experience for reality.

wherefore do you not understand that if the test of reality is experience, then your relationship to God is also experience?

If GOD were experienced like reality no one would deny it except the odd philosopher.

Experience is evidence. Objective experiences that are shared by all like sunlight and the hardness of cement trucks. Those are the type of experiences I am talking about when I speak of "reality". Yet nothing like this exists for God.

Subjective experiences that only you can see are not evidence, you are perfectly capable of being deluded, mistaken, or be suffering from not being able to think well (as is evidenced by this thread).

And YOU JUST ARGUED that God doesn't want evidence to exist and that it is impossible.

Are you counting up the number of times you can contradict yourself in the same thread? Or, does it not occur to you that you just paraded out two entirely contradictory arguments to try and prove the same point?

Once again you prove that you simply aren't that good at thinking.

 

[variant]

they are opposites

you are asking for oppositional possibilities and calling them the same thing, which if you forced God to give them to you, simultaneously, you would die, in the attempt to understand them, simultaneously

if I were you I would say "I feel like having contradictory standards because I'm smart enough not to confuse how I've set them up" or something like that, although granted that sounds like a lack of imagination...

We experience reality directly and consistently, it can be tested and always yields the same answer so it counts as evidence.

Nothing like this exists for God, and you have even argued it is impossible.

How you could KNOW that it is impossible is under question though since you don't have any evidence to back it up.

The simple fact though is that you can not know that evidence for God is impossible because you would need to know that God existed to make such a claim.

 

[variant]

Simple question Godservant.

How can we know that evidence for God is impossible? Wouldn't that require us to know that God existed?

Are you familiar with the logical fallacy "begging the question"?

Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

Look up the word "equivocation".

Did not expect you to understand my statement in the fist place, no harm no foul.

 

[variant]

Hmmm...nice try at mockery, but try, try again. When explaining an watermelon, do you depict an orange? If you say no then your in agreance with me that your comparing just that, two things that have no relevance to one another. First and foremost they do not worship these things, they are rather a folktale, "urban legend" that is passed down to keep their kids from wondering off. The biggest difference in your argument is that no-one (sane) can claim that they have seen one. Many believers have seen, talk and have a relationship with God. (My self included)

The manner of argument actually left all imagined things that people believe in existing.

Which actually argues that God exists because people believe it does.

Lots of different Gods are worshiped as well. They can't all be true.

 

[variant]

Did not expect you to understand my statement in the fist place, no harm no foul.

Your statement that the physical is opposite of the spiritual is asinine in the first place.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

Your statement that the physical is opposite of the spiritual is asinine in the first place.

How so ? You cannot make a blanket statement and be satisfied with yourself of proving me wrong. You gave me your opinion....if the spiritual is not the opposite of the physical then what is ?

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

The manner of argument actually left all imagined things that people believe in existing.

Which actually argues that God exists because people believe it does.

Lots of different Gods are worshiped as well. They can't all be true.

Still no sequitur.... Your trying to pose an argument that, give or take, has no relevance to one another. Just because you apply it, does not make it a reasonable argument.

I do have to agree with you on the next part, there is only one true God....and that is the Heavenly Father.

 

[variant]

How so ? You cannot make a blanket statement and be satisfied with yourself of proving me wrong. You gave me your opinion....if the spiritual is not the opposite of the physical then what is ?

You never supported the statement to begin with.

If you make an argument that I think requires a response other than disregard I will do so.

 

[variant]

Still no sequitur.... Your trying to pose an argument that, give or take, has no relevance to one another. Just because you apply it, does not make it a reasonable argument.

I do have to agree with you on the next part, there is only one true God....and that is the Heavenly Father.

If we apply the standard consistently it states every God exists based upon stating that God exists because it is believed.

God may or may not exist, but it is not evidenced by the fact that people believe in it.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

You never supported the statement to begin with.

If you make an argument that I think requires a response other than disregard I will do so.

You avoided my question. Let me ask again, If the spiritual is not the opposite of the physical than what is ?

 

[variant]

You avoided my question. Let me ask again, If the spiritual is not the opposite of the physical than what is ?

I don't intend to answer it.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Having experiences that you interpret as communication with God doesn't necessarily imply that there is an objective God out there that you are in relationship with. I would require more evidence for God than a person telling me they talk to him. In fact I've personally had experiences that I interpreted as "talking with God" at one time and even that isn't enough evidence for me. When I look back at those occurrence from a more detached position they really don't seem to prove much of anything other then the fact that I have the capability of having such experiences. Some people believe they communicate with aliens. That they are contactees and the space brothers use them communicate with the world. I believe some of them do really believe this and have actual experiences that lead them to think in this direction. That doesn't mean they are actually in contact with anything other than creations of their own subconscious mind though.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

If we apply the standard consistently it states every God exists based upon stating that God exists because it is believed.

God may or may not exist, but it is not evidenced by the fact that people believe in it.

Even that can be put under the category of Belief....just because you believe in something, it does not mean it exists. And I know where this will lead so before you start in from that, allow me to finish, because I have one crucial question to ask you.....do personal experiences play in your mind, at all ?

God must exist, a.personal experiences, not only mine but many others. and b.how could this world be in existence ?

 

[variant]

I have a question for you and something to ponder.... I noticed your an atheist therefore you understand simple science/s. Isaac Newtons third law of thermodynamics states that EVERYTHING has an equal but opposite reaction. Science is based upon this principle so denying what I am about to say will violate everything you stand for, thus self defeating so bear with me. If Isaac Newtons law stands true then we can conclude that the physical has an opposite, and what is the opposite of the physical ? The spiritual ! Therefore it must exist !!

God bless you

For the sake of posterity Newtons third law of thermodynamics actually states:

The entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero is exactly equal to zero.

Newtons third law of motion states:

Third law: When two bodies interact by exerting force on each other, these forces (termed the action and the reaction) are equal in magnitude, but opposite in direction.

Nowhere does this imply that "physical" has an opposite.

 

[Your Friend Jacob]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,helvetica,sans-serif]First you must look outside your closed system and look beyond the blinders of how you see the World. You must first take yourself out of the box and see for yourself what is real. Its easy to disregard things and push them to the side rather than accept what is and could be. Enough with the God doesn't exist, you cannot disprove him as much as I can factually prove his existence. God leaves imprints and weather or not your looking for them will all depend on your interpretation and outlook on the world and how you see things. If you ask a believer about God they can give you pages of both miracles, and personal experiences, you ask a non-believer and their "substantial" evidence for God not existing is both shaky and non-existant because if such a credible thing existed the lack of faith in the world would be overwhelming.

If you wish to understand and know God you must disregard all man made laws, for the True law is written on the heart and enforced by the spirit in love, that is for those who seek Him. What un-believers offer is gratification of the flesh and perversion, making laws to protect those who wish to shun and turn their heads and backs on God. Its quite depleating if you ask me, its like when a child turns away from a parent and acts as if they are not their. Inside the child's system, and way of thinking it puts them in their own "world," but reality is that the parent is still there. As much as you want to think God does not exist it comes down to reality, and reality says otherwise. Everything has a beginning, the world, you, me, that must have a creator ! If a artist never painted a painting then the thought would be just that, a thought, and un-existant. God is real, and God created what little we know as our galaxy. Give or take....[/FONT]

 

[variant]

Even that can be put under the category of Belief....just because you believe in something, it does not mean it exists. And I know where this will lead so before you start in from that, allow me to finish, because I have one crucial question to ask you.....do personal experiences play in your mind, at all ?

God must exist, a.personal experiences, not only mine but many others. and b.how could this world be in existence ?

The post you originally quoted actually put forward the argument that Belief in God justified that God existed. It was not even a serious argument from the person arguing it, he just wanted to juxtapose it with the experience of reality justifying belief in reality (which was also a bad analogy).

.....do personal experiences play in your mind, at all ?

God must exist, a.personal experiences, not only mine but many others. and b.how could this world be in existence ?

Experience matters with evidence because all evidence comes to us through the senses.

Your personal experience and interpretation there of is not a justification for ME to believe in God. It is not objective or evidence, which is how I justify belief in reality, via allusion to objective evidence that we can all share.