God

[Spidermantx]

We have to assume the Christian God does not exist, unless sufficient evidence is given to prove that He does exist.

To prove that the Christian God does exist, we would need an explanation of His attributes (unconditional love, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.).

Then evidence would have to be provided that would prove this kind of God does exist.

Would anyone care to describe God and then provide us with evidence of His existence?

 

[elman]

We have to assume the Christian God does not exist, unless sufficient evidence is given to prove that He does exist.

To prove that the Christian God does exist, we would need an explanation of His attributes (unconditional love, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.).

Then evidence would have to be provided that would prove this kind of God does exist.

Would anyone care to describe God and then provide us with evidence of His existence?

Why do we have to assume the non existence of God if we cannot prove the existence? Why can we not assume the possiblity of the existence and look for evidence that indicates existence but does not prove it? Why is it not equally legitamate for me to say we must assume there is a reason for mankind to exist because something as complex as this could not reasonably be created by random accident? Then if there is a reason for our existing, there must be an intelligent entity that had the reason.

 

[Spidermantx]

Why do we have to assume the non existence of God if we cannot prove the existence? Why can we not assume the possiblity of the existence and look for evidence that indicates existence but does not prove it? Why is it not equally legitamate for me to say we must assume there is a reason for mankind to exist because something as complex as this could not reasonably be created by random accident? Then if there is a reason for our existing, there must be an intelligent entity that had the reason.

Because, otherwise we also have to assume the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Leprachauns, and anything else someone wants to say exists.

Or, if you would like to look at it another way, it is impossible to prove a negative. For example, you may say that prayer works. I may say that I do not believe it to work. You may then ask me to prove it. The only way I can prove prayer does not work is to ask every person who has ever lived on the planet if they have ever prayed, and if so, if it has worked. Then every single one of them has to say that it did not. On the other hand, for you to prove that prayer works, you only need one person to prove it (so and so prayed that fire would shoot out of his hands, it did, and he has witnesses and pictures to prove it). Given, this would still be weak evidence. If thousands of people could reproduce this result, over and over, this would probably be sufficient evidence to convince people that it works.

If you take a class in argumentative writing or study a book about it, you will probably have a much better understanding.

 

[elman]

Because, otherwise we also have to assume the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Leprachauns, and anything else someone wants to say exists.

Or, if you would like to look at it another way, it is impossible to prove a negative. For example, you may say that prayer works. I may say that I do not believe it to work. You may then ask me to prove it. The only way I can prove prayer does not work is to ask every person who has ever lived on the planet if they have ever prayed, and if so, if it has worked. Then every single one of them has to say that it did not. On the other hand, for you to prove that prayer works, you only need one person to prove it (so and so prayed that fire would shoot out of his hands, it did, and he has witnesses and pictures to prove it). Given, this would still be weak evidence. If thousands of people could reproduce this result, over and over, this would probably be sufficient evidence to convince people that it works.

If you take a class in argumentative writing or study a book about it, you will probably have a much better understanding.

That is simply incorrect. We do not have to assume the existence of Santa Claus if we assume the existence of God. We do not assume the existence of God based on what someone else has said or least we should not, but we should assume the existence of God because we have decided to do that and think we have reason to do so. I am one of the people on this planet and I don't have to say prayer does not work, because I have seen it work. I have not seen fire shoot out of my hands or anyone else's hands but that has nothing to do with reality. That is similar to belileving God does not exist since Santa Claus does not exist. I don't have to give you sufficient evidence to convince you that it works. I need only be satified with the evidence for myself. Prayer and the presence of God are things that can be subjectivly seen by the way things occur around us. But we must be open to seeing such things and looking for them in order to perceive them. Sometimes it takes years and you then look back and realize God was working but you did not see it at the time. If you begin with the assumption you will not see prayer work and will not see any evidence of the existence of God then you will probably get what you expect which is not more real than someone else expecting to see results and seeing them. I doubt my reading a book about argumentive writting would change much in our discussion.

 

[Spidermantx]

From wikipedia.org /wiki/Fallacies
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"."

Therefore, we must assume the Christian God does not exist, unless it can be proven He does.

You are just trying to "shift the burden of proof".

Again, I implore you to study up on argumentative writing and argumentative fallacies.

 

[Spidermantx]

Here is some more reading for you:

adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000656.php

 

[Spidermantx]

I am one of the people on this planet and I don't have to say prayer does not work, because I have seen it work. I have not seen fire shoot out of my hands or anyone else's hands but that has nothing to do with reality.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that you have to say prayer does not work.

Maybe this will work for you better. I say you owe me $10.00. Prove to me you do not. You cannot. You can say that you do not because there is nothing that says you do. However, you must remember we are assuming that you do owe it to me, unless you can prove you do not.

It is the same reason someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. If you still believe that the Christian God exists unless it can be proven He does not, then you would also have to believe someone is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Marek]

I believe the world is far too complicated and seamless to have occured by random. Therefore I assume a rational being created it. I don't have proof, but I do have reason to believe God exists. On the other hand, I don't have any reason to believe that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exists.

 

[fuzzyh]

Spidermantx

As to not presupposing the idea of God, you might be interested in reading Reason, Religion and Revelation by Gordon H. Clark. Although, his views are not exactly considered correct by all apologists.

However, what do you base your philosophy on? Do you appeal to empiricism? If so, how do you account for the problems in your sensory perceptions? or are you not aware of them?

However, I'm sure you are familiar with the arguments of God's existence. Most typically used is the cosmological argument. Of course, in and of itself it does not point to the Christian God of the Bible. But it would point to a god, combined with other arguments there is a strong case to be made. (I know that I am not presenting a case now, but I'm trying to find out where you stand more so.)

 

[TeddyKGB]

However, what do you base your philosophy on? Do you appeal to empiricism? If so, how do you account for the problems in your sensory perceptions? or are you not aware of them?

Empiricism does not dictate that we blindly accept the first thing we perceive. In fact, how else would we have uncovered those limitations without empirical methods?

 

[FreezBee]

We have to assume the Christian God does not exist, unless sufficient evidence is given to prove that He does exist.

To prove that the Christian God does exist, we would need an explanation of His attributes (unconditional love, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.).

Then evidence would have to be provided that would prove this kind of God does exist.

Would anyone care to describe God and then provide us with evidence of His existence?

Your argumentation here is quite fine from a positivist standpoint, and that is the standpoint mostly accepted by scientists today.

Others will however start from the existence of God as a given - it's the negative you have to prove, that God does not exist.

Faith and science are not easily interwoven, and some care sjould be taken when you require a scientific proof of God's existence. That would not be faith - faith is believing the unprovable.

I once posted this in a discussion about proofs of God's existence:

For some God does exist. For some God does not exist. For me God does not exist, but then again: maybe I don't exist for God either.


I do not know if any of this makes sense to you, but here it is, so have a good day


cheers

- FreezBee

 

[elman]

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that you have to say prayer does not work.

Maybe this will work for you better. I say you owe me $10.00. Prove to me you do not. You cannot. You can say that you do not because there is nothing that says you do. However, you must remember we are assuming that you do owe it to me, unless you can prove you do not.

It is the same reason someone is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. If you still believe that the Christian God exists unless it can be proven He does not, then you would also have to believe someone is guilty until proven innocent.

Working from the assumtion that we exist for a reason is not the same thing at all as forcing us to assume the existence of Santa Claus and it does not mean that we always in all things have to start with the assumption that we have to prove the negative.

 

[elman]

From wikipedia.org /wiki/Fallacies
"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this"."

Therefore, we must assume the Christian God does not exist, unless it can be proven He does.

You are just trying to "shift the burden of proof".

Again, I implore you to study up on argumentative writing and argumentative fallacies.

I am probably more knowledge of legal burden of proof issues than your are. That has nothing to do with my deciding from looking around that I exist for a reason and before I can think that or work on that assumption, I have to prove to you or someone else that this is true. This is not a court of man made laws and I am the judge and jury of the assumptions that I will allow to govern my life.

 

[Spidermantx]

I believe the world is far too complicated and seamless to have occured by random. Therefore I assume a rational being created it. I don't have proof, but I do have reason to believe God exists. On the other hand, I don't have any reason to believe that Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exists.

As do I, Marek. However, my question is directed at proving that the Christian God exists, not just a creator.

 

[Spidermantx]

Working from the assumtion that we exist for a reason is not the same thing at all as forcing us to assume the existence of Santa Claus and it does not mean that we always in all things have to start with the assumption that we have to prove the negative.

Again, please remember, I am only asking for proof of the existence of THE CHRISTIAN GOD, not just for a creator.

 

[Spidermantx]

Your argumentation here is quite fine from a positivist standpoint, and that is the standpoint mostly accepted by scientists today.

Others will however start from the existence of God as a given - it's the negative you have to prove, that God does not exist.

Faith and science are not easily interwoven, and some care sjould be taken when you require a scientific proof of God's existence. That would not be faith - faith is believing the unprovable.

I once posted this in a discussion about proofs of God's existence:

For some God does exist. For some God does not exist. For me God does not exist, but then again: maybe I don't exist for God either.


I do not know if any of this makes sense to you, but here it is, so have a good day


cheers

- FreezBee

And yet again, I am not just talking about the existence of a god. I am talking about the existence of the Christian God.

 

[elman]

Again, please remember, I am only asking for proof of the existence of THE CHRISTIAN GOD, not just for a creator.

Mostl Christians I think would tell you there is no objective proof of God's existence that would convince someone who did not want to see the evidence and it has never been claimed by serious thinking Christians that it could be proved which is why Christian talk about faith. If it could be proved there would be no need for faith. As a Christian when I am talking about God I am talking about the Creator, not the various misunderstandings about God both Christian and non Christian.

 

[FreezBee]

And yet again, I am not just talking about the existence of a god. I am talking about the existence of the Christian God.

Just to follow up on elman's post: for Christians it makes no sense to prove the existence of the Christian God. This existence is à priori, because the Christian God is the creator. It's part of being Christian.

It's all a question of some rules you abide by, not a question of objective existence.

There can be given no positivist proof of the existence of the Christian God, because the Christian God is defined in a way to make a positivist proof both irrelevant and impossible.

You either accept it or reject it - it's that simple

cheers

- FreezBee

 

[Spidermantx]

My point is, that Christians cannot even begin to define a God that I could even possibly attempt to have faith in. Which is why I am asking.

 

[elman]

My point is, that Christians cannot even begin to define a God that I could even possibly attempt to have faith in. Which is why I am asking.

We define God as ultimate loving and good Creator. Is there a problem so far?
It is from God that we have this life and hope for meaning that transcends the grave.