[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I am not saying that there is not more evidence for one than the other...not by any means. BUT: Accepting the word of a person as proof (no matter how many say it) on most every issue in your life and expecting proof on one specific issue seems foolish -not too many years ago all those in authority would have said that God was real (and we would be having the opposite conversation)u_r_a_sausage

Yes. Muslim here.

I believe there is a God.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] I accept what most people in authority positions say (authority as in knowledgeable about a subject But I do not demand proof of anythingHoolaHoopMan

And like I've been repeating endlessly in this thread, it goes back to the idea of verifiable and falsifiable ideas. You don't demand your doctor show you endless amounts of medical journals after his diagnosis because he is an authority on issue, just as a physicist is on physics and chemist in his field.

The reason why you don't see people demanding proof endlessly for the idea that matter is made up of atoms, or that disease is made up of tiny invading life forms ,is because they are well documented and deemed "true" due to repeat experiments validating their results and conclusions. You seem to be hung up on this notion that people just assume what researchers say it true and only continually demand proof for God.

Let me tell you that when a scientist comes up with an experiment revolving around a certain hypothesis that isn't very well understood or new to any given field that there are plenty of people out there that demand proof. If the experiment survives the hurdles of peer review the lingering "demand" as you put it will eventually disappear because that need as been satisfied by repeat experiments. The reason why people still demand proof of God is because these needs have not been met in anything that could be remotely considered objective nor falsifiable in the slightest.

If there was anyway that God could be verified by empirical means we wouldn't need to keep demanding proof for it's existence, that is the difference between "proof" of God and a scientific theory. One can be verified, the other simply cannot.

You have totally missed my point it seems.
I don't really know what else to say about it tbh.

The same game has been played for centuries (and will continue to be played).
Some things will hold true and some will not...no matter what evidence you use...no matter what methods you choose
People are just as sure about things now as they were back then.
Do you not think people will look back on us as we do those in the past?

So we accept things as true now without proving anything. Just as people did in the past and will do in the future...except on one main issue [talking about most, not all, of the population]

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

[QUOTE="ganon92"] That's his point really; the positive (God's existence) has not been proven.ganon92

You can prove the positive assertion that something is impossible. Anyone who insists that God does or does not bear the burden of proof. You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can prove that its existence is impossible. You can't prove that something didn't happen, but you can prove that it was impossible for something to have happened.

But there are however, actually dozens of arguments for theism that have been issued and debated by some of the world's most influential philsophers and theologians mostly involved with logical necessity, subjective experiences, and circumstantial evidence.

Take this list put together by Professor Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Theisticarguments.html

Then you have arguments such as the modal argument, the cosmological argument, teleological argument, the moral argument, and the argument from abstract objects, the ontological argument.

You have totally missed my point it seems.
I don't really know what else to say about it tbh.

The same game has been played for centuries (and will continue to be played).
Some things will hold true and some will not...no matter what evidence you use...no matter what methods you choose
People are just as sure about things now as they were back then.
Do you not think people will look back on us as we do those in the past?

So we accept things as true now without proving anything. Just as people did in the past and will do in the future...except on one main issue [talking about most, not all, of the population]

rawsavon

Well to be honest I kind of did answer it a few pages back when I talked about the correcting method science entails. Good science stands the test of time, bad science simply doesn't. The things that "hold true" as you say are the ones supported by sound evidence, the ones that don't, well aren't. It seems to fly directly in the face of your assertion that "no matter what evidence you use"....it's entirely dependant on the evidence you use.

People will most likely look back at us and think "wow they actually believed that!?" on many matters, however they will also have the opposing view point of agreeing on many of the same principles and theories that we adhere to today. The same can be said about our culture looking back on scientific endeavors of past generations. We still use Newtons laws as a framework for physics in many cases, but ideas like spontaneous generation have been thrown out. The same will hold true for future generations.

Unsupported ideas go away when confronted by well supported ones built upon the framework of good......EVIDENCE.

And let me clarify that when I say "proven", I mean empircally. A certain demeographic of people can accept something as being true, but it doesn't mean that it is unless sufficiently backed up.

[QUOTE="ganon92"]

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

You can prove the positive assertion that something is impossible. Anyone who insists that God does or does not bear the burden of proof. You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can prove that its existence is impossible. You can't prove that something didn't happen, but you can prove that it was impossible for something to have happened.

magiciandude

But there are however, actually dozens of arguments for theism that have been issued and debated by some of the world's most influential philsophers and theologians mostly involved with logical necessity, subjective experiences, and circumstantial evidence.

Take this list put together by Professor Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Theisticarguments.html

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

[QUOTE="ganon92"] That's his point really; the positive (God's existence) has not been proven.ganon92

You can prove the positive assertion that something is impossible. Anyone who insists that God does or does not bear the burden of proof. You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can prove that its existence is impossible. You can't prove that something didn't happen, but you can prove that it was impossible for something to have happened.

There are at least 2 ways around this-

-Not everyone believes that God in any way violates physical laws. Your statement assumes a very narrow concept of God.

-Our understanding of physical laws is based on observations made from a single planet in a very short period of time.

Where's the option for "I don't know ether way, can't know ether way, doesn't seem particularly relevant to my life ether way"?

There are at least 2 ways around this-

-Not everyone believes that God in any way violates physical laws. Your statement assumes a very narrow concept of God.

-Our understanding of physical laws is based on observations made from a single planet in a very short period of time.hartsickdiscipl

-I confess I've used a narrow definition, but that's only because there's roughly a billion I could have referred to; I've tried to summarise, in a simplistic form, the Abrahamic God.

-We're concerning arguments made by humans in favour and opposed to the existence of God. There is little else we can use beyond our current understanding of physical laws, unless you want to consider 'magic' an equally legitimate measure.

Yeah man, because I did so as a little kid and I was like way cooler back then.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

You have totally missed my point it seems.
I don't really know what else to say about it tbh.

The same game has been played for centuries (and will continue to be played).
Some things will hold true and some will not...no matter what evidence you use...no matter what methods you choose
People are just as sure about things now as they were back then.
Do you not think people will look back on us as we do those in the past?

So we accept things as true now without proving anything. Just as people did in the past and will do in the future...except on one main issue [talking about most, not all, of the population]

HoolaHoopMan

Well to be honest I kind of did answer it a few pages back when I talked about the correcting method science entails. Good science stands the test of time, bad science simply doesn't. The things that "hold true" as you say are the ones supported by sound evidence, the ones that don't, well aren't. It seems to fly directly in the face of your assertion that "no matter what evidence you use"....it's entirely dependant on the evidence you use.

People will most likely look back at us and think "wow they actually believed that!?" on many matters, however they will also have the opposing view point of agreeing on many of the same principles and theories that we adhere to today. The same can be said about our culture looking back on scientific endeavors of past generations. We still use Newtons laws as a framework for physics in many cases, but ideas like spontaneous generation have been thrown out. The same will hold true for future generations.

Unsupported ideas go away when confronted by well supported ones built upon the framework of good......EVIDENCE.

And let me clarify that when I say "proven", I mean empircally. A certain demeographic of people can accept something as being true, but it doesn't mean that it is unless sufficiently backed up.

You are still missing the point.
Everything you hold as true now...well people felt the exact same back then...and those in the future will feel the same as you do now about current and past events. Every method we use could be disproven.

But that is only to demonstrate that people take things others say as fact. Things which can never really be proven to be 100% true anyways. They do thins b/c it seems right and b/c lots of people agree.
Note that I do this as well.
But they are going on nothing more than Faith in their fellow man...in what man has accomplished...on faith that those with knowledge are correct b/c they choose not to prove things on their own.
But then they get all upset and demand proof of something that can't be proven either way at this point (God)...LULZ

No...

glad to see thats theres more atheists on GS...we can take over teh wolrd

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"][QUOTE="rawsavon"] I don't think there is 100% proof for anything...but that is not my point. There mty be 99.9% proof (or w/e level you want to say) People do not even prove things 99.9% of the way. They just accept what people that sound smart say. I do this as well. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But these same people that do not prove anything, expect it when it comes to Godrawsavon

People in the past would have said the same thing about the world being flat, the sun going around the earth, objects falling at different speeds, etc.
-there was 'proof' for all those things
-who is to say what will stand the test of time

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]of course there is 100% proof for somethings.Vinegar_Strokes

People in the past would have said the same thing about the world being flat, the sun going around the earth, objects falling at different speeds, etc.
-there was 'proof' for all those things
-who is to say what will stand the test of time

Nothing I would ever say is 100% true...no.
99.99999%...sure.

TBH, I don't think we can ever be 100% sure of anything.
Tht does not stop me from accepting things as such though. I just realize that I might be wrong

I used to believe that there was a god but lately for the past few months I've been unsure. I don't think so.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]There are at least 2 ways around this-

-Not everyone believes that God in any way violates physical laws. Your statement assumes a very narrow concept of God.

-Our understanding of physical laws is based on observations made from a single planet in a very short period of time.ganon92

-I confess I've used a narrow definition, but that's only because there's roughly a billion I could have referred to; I've tried to summarise, in a simplistic form, the Abrahamic God.

-We're concerning arguments made by humans in favour and opposed to the existence of God. There is little else we can use beyond our current understanding of physical laws, unless you want to consider 'magic' an equally legitimate measure.

I think you're still off the mark a bit. The "Abrahamic God" isn't viewed the same way by everyone either. It's only the mainstream interpretations and pictures that are painted of the Abrahamic God that seem to be so unrealistic. When you read the Bible, it's important to try to look at the events described through the awestruck eyes of a person with a very primitive technological perspective living thousands of years ago.

I'm not talking about magic, I'm talking about being keeping perspective and realizing that our civilization doesn't really know much about the universe that we live in.

[QUOTE="Vinegar_Strokes"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

People in the past would have said the same thing about the world being flat, the sun going around the earth, objects falling at different speeds, etc.
-there was 'proof' for all those things
-who is to say what will stand the test of time

rawsavon

Nothing I would ever say is 100% true...no.
99.99999%...sure.

TBH, I don't think we can ever be 100% sure of anything.
Tht does not stop me from accepting things as such though. I just realize that I might be wrong

I think the same way. It's a very "Zen" way of dealing with life. When something that seems to be very bad happens, I say "we'll see." When something that seems to be very good happens as a result of the first event, I say "we'll see." Nothing is every certain. Nothing is ever exactly as it seems. People are quick to jump to conclusions about everything. Nothing is absolute.

Nothing I would ever say is 100% true...no.

rawsavon

[QUOTE="magiciandude"]

[QUOTE="ganon92"] This is trickier when it comes to God since we can say that his existence is impossible due to our understanding of physical laws, but God is meant to transcend the universe's laws as he created them and exists both within and outside the universe. As such it isn't possible to prove that it is impossible he can't exist because it would require transcendent means to do so.

ganon92

But there are however, actually dozens of arguments for theism that have been issued and debated by some of the world's most influential philsophers and theologians mostly involved with logical necessity, subjective experiences, and circumstantial evidence.

Take this list put together by Professor Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Theisticarguments.html

That depends on your presupposition.

You are still missing the point.
Everything you hold as true now...well people felt the exact same back then...and those in the future will feel the same as you do now about current and past events. Every method we use could be disproven.

But that is only to demonstrate that people take things others say as fact. Things which can never really be proven to be 100% true anyways. They do thins b/c it seems right and b/c lots of people agree.
Note that I do this as well.
But they are going on nothing more than Faith in their fellow man...in what man has accomplished...on faith that those with knowledge are correct b/c they choose not to prove things on their own.
But then they get all upset and demand proof of something that can't be proven either way at this point (God)...LULZ

rawsavon

I don't believe I'm missing your point at all, I just addressed it.

As I said in my previous post, many ideas will ultimately be overturned in the future, this is a natural process when we havel a self correcting method which deals with the need of supporting evidence. Many beliefs and truths we hold today will disappear, but many will still be alive and kicking in the times to come.

I've also reiterated several times in this thread that I'm in agreeance that nothing can be proven to 100% certainty, I used the rising of the Sun example earlier. What we attempt to do is say that it's extremely likely to an extant that to say otherwise is statistically null. I can't prove to you that the Sun will rise tmw, but I'd still bet my entire net worth that it does because the odds are slim to none that it won't.

And again this has nothing to to with "your fellow man" as you put it. It has to do with the evidence supporting what these "authorities" say.

Well it's dinner time, it's been a pleasure.

of course I believe that I exist

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Nothing I would ever say is 100% true...no.

xaos

[QUOTE="ganon92"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]There are at least 2 ways around this-

-Not everyone believes that God in any way violates physical laws. Your statement assumes a very narrow concept of God.

-Our understanding of physical laws is based on observations made from a single planet in a very short period of time.hartsickdiscipl

-I confess I've used a narrow definition, but that's only because there's roughly a billion I could have referred to; I've tried to summarise, in a simplistic form, the Abrahamic God.

-We're concerning arguments made by humans in favour and opposed to the existence of God. There is little else we can use beyond our current understanding of physical laws, unless you want to consider 'magic' an equally legitimate measure.

I think you're still off the mark a bit. The "Abrahamic God" isn't viewed the same way by everyone either. It's only the mainstream interpretations and pictures that are painted of the Abrahamic God that seem to be so unrealistic. When you read the Bible, it's important to try to look at the events described through the awestruck eyes of a person with a very primitive technological perspective living thousands of years ago.

I'm not talking about magic, I'm talking about being keeping perspective and realizing that our civilization doesn't really know much about the universe that we live in.

[QUOTE="ganon92"][QUOTE="magiciandude"]

But there are however, actually dozens of arguments for theism that have been issued and debated by some of the world's most influential philsophers and theologians mostly involved with logical necessity, subjective experiences, and circumstantial evidence.

Take this list put together by Professor Alvin Plantinga of the University of Notre Dame.

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/Theisticarguments.html

magiciandude

That depends on your presupposition.

No; no proof, so many religions how could you know yours is true and it some of the same stories from older religions with the names changed why can't it be original, be creative?

To the poster who said about Noah's ark about being so advance we wouldn't see for 2000 years; Star wars has huge spaceships and was quite detailed wait 2000 years and see if people look back and think of star wars as a religious book.

Nothing I would ever say is 100% true...no.

Nope.

Well it's dinner time, it's been a pleasure.

HoolaHoopMan

No; no proof, so many religions how could you know yours is true and it some of the same stories from older religions with the names changed why can't it be original, be creative?

To the poster who said about Noah's ark about being so advance we wouldn't see for 2000 years; Star wars has huge spaceships and was quite detailed wait 2000 years and see if people look back and think of star wars as a religious book.

Communist_Soul

Millions of people won't look back at Star Wars as a religious or historical book because it was never intended to be one. It was written as a movie script by a person living in a society that already had space travel, not as a historical record that matches up with similar legends from around the world. And nobody claims that someone actually built a Star Destroyer. Just a couple of key differences.

[QUOTE="Communist_Soul"]

No; no proof, so many religions how could you know yours is true and it some of the same stories from older religions with the names changed why can't it be original, be creative?

To the poster who said about Noah's ark about being so advance we wouldn't see for 2000 years; Star wars has huge spaceships and was quite detailed wait 2000 years and see if people look back and think of star wars as a religious book.

hartsickdiscipl

Millions of people won't look back at Star Wars as a religious or historical book because it was never intended to be one. It was written as a movie script by a person living in a society that already had space travel, not as a historical record that matches up with similar legends from around the world. And nobody claims that someone actually built a Star Destroyer. Just a couple of key differences.

Scientologist care to disagree with the notion; basing a religion on a fiction book. So why can't star wars?

I worship multiple gods and what I believe in will not be changed.

Simple question do you believe in God?

caribo2222

I never want to go back to being an Agnostic as I once was, not that being Agnostic is a bad thing in itself, I just have never, ever regretted the decision I made. My answer to the above question is a strong - Yes. I do believe!

I don't think about it much as it doesn't really matter to me. So I'm not sure.

I'm agnostic leaning a bit towards deism. I sometimes find it hard to comprehend how our universe came to be without the existence of a higher power. But, of course, the question of how this higher power came to be comes up...and then the idea that this higher power has always been...and on and on. Regardless, the whole concept has no impact on me and is something I have complete indifference towards.

[QUOTE="Mega-Mustaine"]I want to believe, but there's little to no proof he exists, so not really.ipod_360_gamer

19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:19-20

Im continually growing in my faith but i wanna try to help you heres a site i found that i like that could help you.

http://www.biblestudyspace.com/forum/topics/jeremiah-291314-you-will

Excellent Job! :D

glad to see thats theres more atheists on GS...we can take over teh wolrd

GrabTheYayo

You can take over the Garbage -_-

Yup, I is a Christian, got baptised a year ago :)

No. Even after trying multiple times I never felt that "born again" sensation or whatever its supposed to be.

i really dont think a god exists at all, but I'm open to the possibilities of some form of higher life form existing, just not in the context of any organised religion.

[QUOTE="ipod_360_gamer"]

[QUOTE="Mega-Mustaine"]I want to believe, but there's little to no proof he exists, so not really.Fares20

19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Romans 1:19-20

Im continually growing in my faith but i wanna try to help you heres a site i found that i like that could help you.

http://www.biblestudyspace.com/forum/topics/jeremiah-291314-you-will

Excellent Job! :D