Demonstrable proof

[Biker Angel]

I asked how people are determining reality from non-reality and you jump to not accepting proof provided? I didn't ask for this proof that you claim I am denying.

The title of your thread is: Demonstrable Proof, so my comment was relative. You are the one that changed it to: How to determine reality from non-reality. See how you twist things around? Your the one who is coming to a Christian forum and starting a thread demanding "DEMONSTRABLE PROOF" knowing that you are barking from a safe place where Christians can not give you that kind of demonstrable proof that you demand.

Try to change your point of view from wanting general proof of christianity and God as a whole, to maybe seeking some kind of substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Non sequitur]

Remember, you have defined "proof" as "Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement." If it can be proved that the sun will rise, it should be an established fact, correct?


We have evidence that it should rise tomorrow, but none of it is definite in that we know what will happen tomorrow. For all we know it will not rise and that's the end of it. Think about it terms of your existence. You cannot prove that you will rise out of bed tomorrow, can you? You do not actually "know" that you will be alive tomorrow or any point beyond that. Same goes with the sun rising.
__

So now when you define "proof" here is it different than how you defined it earlier as "Evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement"? Is it a fact that you will live to see tomorrow?

We don't need to add the supernatural to understand the sun rising. It has the capability to rise and fall with or without the presence of a god making it happen.

If it follows every law and/or theory that we have established as true, unless
you want to start cherry picking them, that would be proof that it will rise tomorrow.

If I drop this cup in my hand, we have proof and demonstrable evidence that it will fall. If you wanna go around saying that we actually don't and nobody can prove it, be my guest.

I'm sure a ridiculous number of people would love to talk to you about this lack of proof or simply write you off as the ramblings of a mad man.

I'm not going to argue any semantics with you, anymore.

Well because I find those beliefs to fit how I percieve the world. Just because you don't understand someones reasoning for believing something doesn't mean there isn't one.


Well knowing isn't the same thing as believing, I would say. I believe things of Christianity, I do not claim to know them with certainty because of some empirical proof. What exactly are you referring to when you say circular logic? I believe there are certain things from each religion that may be true or valid, but I'm not sure that makes the religion on whole valid or true.

I never said you didn't have a reason to believe anything.

So what you are saying is you have a theory?

 

[Non sequitur]

The title of your thread is: Demonstrable Proof, so my comment was relative. You are the one that changed it to: How to determine reality from non-reality. See how you twist things around? Your the one who is coming to a Christian forum and starting a thread demanding "DEMONSTRABLE PROOF" knowing that you are barking from a safe place where Christians can not give you that kind of demonstrable proof that you demand.

Try to change your point of view from wanting general proof of christianity and God as a whole, to maybe seeking some kind of substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

Twisting?

My question changed because someone replied to it, so I had a follow up question. That leads us to establishing points of view and dialogue.

I don't know that Christians can or can not provide demonstrable proof. That's why I asked. Do I not have the right to ask questions, from my point of view ( I mean, how else should I ask them), about things I don't understand?

If nobody likes my questions, I would suggest... they not reply?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Define, demonstrable.

 

[Non sequitur]

Define, demonstrable.

I already did in this thread. And I also defined some of the words that were used to define demonstrable.

Do you want me to again?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Well, there's 5 pages of stuff here, and I ain't wading through it all, so sure.

 

[elopez]

We don't need to add the supernatural to understand the sun rising. It has the capability to rise and fall with or without the presence of a god making it happen.

Nice straw man. I never said anything about God being present for the sun to rise. My argument is that you cannot prove that it will rise tomorrow or any day beyond that, just as you cannot prove you will be alive tomorrow. I also liked how you ignored that part of my argument. Obviously you violate your original definition of proof because you have not shown that it is fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is not fact that you will rise out of bed tomorrow, though you believe you are going to.

If it follows every law and/or theory that we have established as true, unless
you want to start cherry picking them, that would be proof that it will rise tomorrow.

If I drop this cup in my hand, we have proof and demonstrable evidence that it will fall. If you wanna go around saying that we actually don't and nobody can prove it, be my guest.

Dropping a cup is vastly different than the sun rising. The thing is we have established that the sun will rise off of past experiences, and because of the present laws of nature. Again none of that shows anything about the future of the sun or laws of nature.

I'm sure a ridiculous number of people would love to talk to you about this lack of proof or simply write you off as the ramblings of a mad man.

I'm not going to argue any semantics with you, anymore.

Only those who cannot handle themselves in debate. Well it seems as if you are attempting to shift the orignal meaning of proof you gave, so that's fine with me.

I never said you didn't have a reason to believe anything.

So what you are saying is you have a theory?

I wouldn't call it a theory per se, as in a scientific theory of the sorts. It is a belief.

 

[Non sequitur]

Well, there's 5 pages of stuff here, and I ain't wading through it all, so sure.

Np.

Loosely: Capable of being demonstrated or proved. The ability to repeatedly demonstrate something consistently (yielding the same results).


Demonstrable proof of gravity would be:

I can drop this cup in my hand and it will fall (it's speed is dictated by gravitational force proportionate to its mass) every time.

I can challenge and test this. You can challenge and test this. Anybody can challenge and test this.

This can be challenged and tested any where at any time.

This can be repeated endlessly and will occur the exact same way every time.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

So you wish to prove a metaphysical idea by scientific methods?

 

[elopez]

Np.

Loosely: Capable of being demonstrated or proved. The ability to repeatedly demonstrate something consistently (yielding the same results).


Demonstrable proof of gravity would be:

I can drop this cup in my hand and it will fall (it's speed is dictated by gravitational force proportionate to its mass) every time.

I can challenge and test this. You can challenge and test this. Anybody can challenge and test this.

This can be challenged and tested any where at any time.

This can be repeated endlessly and will occur the exact same way every time.

Can we challenge and test the sun rising? Can it be tested any where at any time? If not, then you cannot prove that it will rise.

 

[Non sequitur]

Nice straw man. I never said anything about God being present for the sun to rise. My argument is that you cannot prove that it will rise tomorrow or any day beyond that, just as you cannot prove you will be alive tomorrow. I also liked how you ignored that part of my argument. Obviously you violate your original definition of proof because you have not shown that it is fact that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is not fact that you will rise out of bed tomorrow, though you believe you are going to.

Nice non sequitur. Are we gonna go through all of them? False dichotomy, being my personal favorite.

Dropping a cup is vastly different than the sun rising. The thing is we have established that the sun will rise off of past experiences, and because of the present laws of nature. Again none of that shows anything about the future of the sun or laws of nature.

Nope. Exact same principles directly apply to why they happen.

We believe the sun will rise, because past experiences.

And I agree with you on this part. We know it will, because of the laws of nature, one of those being... the law of gravitation.

So... are you questioning the validity of the law of gravity now?

Only those who cannot handle themselves in debate. Well it seems as if you are attempting to shift the orignal meaning of proof you gave, so that's fine with me.

I never said I couldn't, I said I didn't want to. If you want to debate, bring up one topic at a time, talk about it until we have settled on it.

Don't make me dig through your post, having to address a multitude of things, then we are juggling multiple arguments. Many based on the previous unsettled argument.

I wouldn't call it a theory per se, as in a scientific theory of the sorts. It is a belief.

If you say you can't say for sure, but accept some premises, then it's a theory. Scientific or non-scientific.

 

[Non sequitur]

So you wish to prove a metaphysical idea by scientific methods?

If that is what we are arriving at, which in our conversation it appears we can't do, then my question would be: how do you determine reality from non-reality?

 

[Non sequitur]

Can we challenge and test the sun rising? Can it be tested any where at any time? If not, then you cannot prove that it will rise.

Really? You're going with that?

If the same rules of the law of gravity apply to everything, (gravitation force proportionate to mass), then they apply to everything.

It doesn't matter if I can't touch or even see a pencil that you drop to know, it will fall because of gravity.

Yoinks! That kinda proves that I don't need to, literally, test your pencil to know what it was gonna do.

Go reality, go!

 

[elopez]

Nice non sequitur. Are we gonna go through all of them? False dichotomy, being my personal favorite.

See it's one thing to charge one with a fallacy but it's a whole other thing to explain how the fallacy applies. Seeing as how you did not accomplish that, I see no reason to take your charge seriously or even valid.

Nope. Exact same principles directly apply to why they happen.

We believe the sun will rise, because past experiences.

And I agree with you on this part. We know it will, because of the laws of nature, one of those being... the law of gravitation.

So... are you questioning the validity of the law of gravity now?

Nope what? Nope dropping something is not different from the sun rising? Are you seriously suggesting that? We do not know it will rise because of the laws of nature are operating presently, that does not mean they will be operating tomorrow. I am not questioning anything but simply the fact that we do not know with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow just as you do not know you will live to see tomorrow.

I never said I couldn't, I said I didn't want to. If you want to debate, bring up one topic at a time, talk about it until we have settled on it.

Don't make me dig through your post, having to address a multitude of things, then we are juggling multiple arguments. Many based on the previous unsettled argument.

I'm addressing your OP. Again if you cannot handle it then why even start the thread? All of these things being said are related to you OP.

If you say you can't say for sure, but accept some premises, then it's a theory. Scientific or non-scientific.

I believe you obscure the definition of scientific theory or theory at all here. I accept all the premises of Christianity, and none of them I can prove absolutely. I believe in the premises. Is a belief different from a theory or the same thing?

 

[Non sequitur]

See it's one thing to charge one with a fallacy but it's a whole other thing to explain how the fallacy applies. Seeing as how you did not accomplish that, I see no reason to take your charge seriously or even valid.


Nope what? Nope dropping something is not different from the sun rising? Are you seriously suggesting that? We do not know it will rise because of the laws of nature are operating presently, that does not mean they will be operating tomorrow. I am not questioning anything but simply the fact that we do not know with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow just as you do not know you will live to see tomorrow.


I'm addressing your OP. Again if you cannot handle it then why even start the thread? All of these things being said are related to you OP.


I believe you obscure the definition of scientific theory or theory at all here. I accept all the premises of Christianity, and none of them I can prove absolutely. I believe in the premises. Is a belief different from a theory or the same thing?

I'm going to try my hardest to not address everything you said, not because I can't, but there are many things I view as incorrect and it will derail original topics.

Let's do one at a time.

"We do not know it will rise because of the laws of nature are operating presently, that does not mean they will be operating tomorrow. I am not questioning anything but simply the fact that we do not know with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow just as you do not know you will live to see tomorrow."

The appearance of the sun rising is simply because the earth, spinning on its axis, orbits the sun.

Laws have not and don't just stop working. They don't only work in a specific linear time line; "tomorrow" won't do anything to it.

Now, if some giant mass hits the sun or the earth, then yes it might not rise tomorrow.

But now we are talking about probability of an event occurring within the laws of nature, and honestly that's not the gist of what you are talking about.

Your point was, I believe, there are things which we don't know. Which I agree with... and kind of doesn't prove any point, now.

So, this argument is rather moot since the appearance of the sun rising may or may not happen, but gravity will affect it either way.



Now, if you want everything to come with a caveat of "**** happens", fine.

You might grow a third arm and I might start flying, by only using my mind. Are these the kind of things you want to now accept in the realm of reality?

Because I'm not aware of any law that supports those possibilities.

 

[Biker Angel]

My apologies; it is not my religious belief, so I have to go on what I have read and been told about Jesus. Which of these comments were the Christ-like ones, that didn't involve you accusing and/or judging me.

"You all eventually get sorted out and soon forgotten as you drop down to the bottom of the thread page."

"If you really want to learn then you would be asking the right questions..."

"My gut feeling is that you don't want to learn about Christianity and that you would rather oppose it with your I want proof rant."

(I guess the question would be: Would Jesus have ever said any of these things to me?)

There you go again changing your question to conveniently adhere to your unbelief. And yes I think Jesus would have asked questions like the one in bold above.

 

[Non sequitur]

There you go again changing your question to conveniently adhere to your unbelief.

My questions naturally change as the conversation moves forward, regardless of my belief.

1st) Do you like ice cream?

2nd) What kind of ice cream?

Is there some form of trickery you see going on?

I just see a logical train of thought and dialogue, but if you think it's somehow convenient for me to to do that (in a deceptive way), be my guest.

And yes I think Jesus would have asked questions like the one in bold above.

Good for you; 1 out of 3 of your statements were Christ-like.

 

[alleekirk]

You show me the proof that He doesn't exist. For thousands of years one after another tried to disprove God and Christianity. If you want to disprove Christianity, it's simple....SHOW ME THE BODY!

 

[Non sequitur]

You show me the proof that He doesn't exist. For thousands of years one after another tried to disprove God and Christianity. If you want to disprove Christianity, it's simple....SHOW ME THE BODY!

Well, we will arrive at either 2 conclusions with those statements above:

1) The burden of proof lies in with the party making claims to provide sufficient warrant for their position. I never asserted a claim.

2) If you can not provide proof that he does exist and I can not provide proof that he doesn't, then by default any assertions you make are not true, until proven otherwise.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

No one can prove God. Either one has first hand experience or they don't. This experience comes as a grace from God and not from the self (ego) "lest any man should boast". No one can impart that over the internet (that I know of at least).

It's my understanding that all people will come to God realization. The process may take incredibly long periods of time. Many aions of painful study. It will not end after this body is left behind and long forgotten. Each seed will ripen when the God ordained time arrives.

God is the greatest thief of hearts. He will find yours someday. No need for me to convince you. God needs no defense. Good luck in your search