kickfight wrote:

Nope... like anything else that can be verified through trial and error, through rigorous research, there is proof that God exists by the knowledge of God...

I would be very curious to read this 'rigorous research' into the existance of God. References, please?  /t

kickfight wrote:

Nope... like anything else that can be verified through trial and error, through rigorous research, there is proof that God exists by the knowledge of God in the experience of people. You can hand-wave that away as 'anecdotal', but that's hand-waving, and not a legitimate counter-argument.

Perhaps the definition of a Tautology would help you here:

Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=tautology

Nihilus wrote:
Damn, you two! Look what I've stumbled upon! The ole dangerous "opinion", "god" and "prove" words...

Let's see if we can't make heads or tails of this dilemma.

First, it would really serve well to isolate what each of you mean by "god". I'm presuming that we're speaking of a personal 'entity' with which each person interacts individually (as alluded to by the OPs "faith" definition).

The answer to this issue ends much the same way that Descartes' attempt to prove personal existence does...

Personal experience is indeed anecdotal...however, to the extent that it exists in someone's personal interactions, it actually does "prove god" exists. This happens by mere interactions with said entity...particularly because it is being personified.

Note, however ,that this does not really determine what it is that "god" is in any sort of real way. Much in the same way that a child's imaginary unicorn pet is made real by their belief/interaction with it (which, although circular, does create its own "existence"). The unicorn is not a real thing by the common use of the term.

Now, dealing with things logically, there is no foundation for the belief in a god that is not without serious flaws. Nevermind that some 'proofs' (i.e. Aquinas) come with unecessary and/or erroneous a priori implications.

So...even if you narrow a discussion of this with someone to strictly 'objective' logical parameters, you will often find that personal 'mystical' experience treats itself as a wild-card for the believer , since the "existence" is normally taken to a blanket level.

Nihilus, welcome to the debate.  I enjoyed your post, but my colleague to the North of me does not even know the meaning of the word 'opinion' - I believe you might have walked into a quasi-intellectual mind field here.  Good luck.    /t

Tim Baker wrote:
Nihilus, welcome to the debate.  I enjoyed your post, but my colleague to the North of me does not even know the meaning of the word 'opinion' - I believe you might have walked into a quasi-intellectual mind field here.  Good luck.    /t

Thank you, Tim. Always find you mixed up in these fun debates! I do have to perform a better skim through this fun you two have had...

Tim Baker wrote:
I'd say a type of proof based on verifiable evidence - not emotion or will-to-believe dogma.

Scientific, then, I beg your pardon. I thought you felt proper proofs were mathematical. But I'll still maintain that you guys have irrevocable statements going.

By the way, I'm not subscribing to any proof or nonproof. I honestly do not follow the principle, though, earlier stated that "claiming disproof equals proof."

Nihilus wrote:
Thank you, Tim. Always find you mixed up in these fun debates! I do have to perform a better skim through this fun you two have had...

LOL...religion and politics. Two of my favorite subjects (yes, I don't get invited to too may parties /t

Most people wouldn't know I was born into a very fundamental Christian (S. Baptist) family.  I even won a Bible when I was like 14 or so for memorizing the most number of Psalms.  It wasn't until I lived in a Muslim and Buddhist country that I finally saw the light and realized that no one of us has the answer.  I respect all religions and know the failings of most of them.  But I will always respect the right of an individual to believe as they wish, but I will also debate them and expect their beliefs to be built not on a foundation of sand, but upon evidence and well founded logic.  I was in a discussion last year, about this time, with a friend who is a minister - even he admitted that he didn't believe much of the Bible as the literal word or God and acknowledged the contradictions and lack of evidence to support belief in the document.  He said to me, "At least science updates its text books every-other-year; we (religion) does not."  I got a good laugh out of that one.

Justin wrote:
Scientific, then, I beg your pardon. I thought you felt proper proofs were mathematical. But I'll still maintain that you guys have irrevocable statements going.

By the way, I'm not subscribing to any proof or nonproof. I honestly do not follow the principle, though, earlier stated that "claiming disproof equals proof."

Math is the foundation of all science. It is a science and is considered by many to be the universal language.  I gave you an example of 'true' proofs, not 'proper' ones. I agree with you statement regarding "disproof equals proof."  That's called a false dichotomy and serves no purpose in the debate other than to move it toward an illogical conclusion.  /t

bencook2 wrote:
CAll Wikipedia.  This is a text book thread highjack by tim and the other dude. Thread Highjack will hence forth be refered to as a "Tim".

there is no way I will read all that.  Tim if you want me to respond to something please help me and point it out.

Thanks Ben. But I felt like I was debating a 6th grader.  I mean, how can someone not know the difference between 'opinion' and 'theory'?  Basically, he was a huge waste of time. /t

BCG wrote:
"Nope. The Bible is clouded with contraditions.  If any other book was this contraditory, we'd toss it in the garbage."


*in best impression of God doing an impression of a bald and chunky naval aviator*


"son your ego is writing checks your soul can't cash"

Careful...God will have you "flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong"

bencook2 wrote:

Careful...God will have you "flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong"

They have rubber dogs in Hong Kong?  This Avian Flu is worse than I thought

bencook2 wrote:

Careful...God will have you "flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong"

*PSL*

BCG wrote:

*PSL*

P S L is a new one.  I don't know that one.

Tim Baker wrote:
Is this God, then?

Actually view the remains of a shuttle disaster.

Provide comfort to a rape victim.

Wonder how a Buddhist like Tiger Woods can swing like he does.

Tell a child she is dying from cancer and will not be able to finger paint any longer.

Become lost while fishing and die from hypothermia.

Be a six-year-old boy, singing Jingle Bells, on his way to visit his relatives, only to die after his dad's car is hit by an airplane that ran off the runway in Chicago.

Don't read the Constitution because you can't read.

Privately, quietly, humbly go to sleep on some downtown business doorstep, homeless and freezing, while you ask yourself, "where is God?"

No. That would be the Devil.

bencook2 wrote:

P S L is a new one.  I don't know that one.

*poops self laffing*

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Religion is putting a system to faith. The first time man prayed to a higher power it was faith...when it worked and man decided to continue praying in the same manner each time to get results...religion was born. Then of course came the first schism, when caveman B said caveman A was doing it all wrong.

That is the best description of the birth of religion I have ever read. Good job.

Tim Baker wrote:
Thanks Ben. But I felt like I was debating a 6th grader.  I mean, how can someone not know the difference between 'opinion' and 'theory'?  Basically, he was a huge waste of time. /t

Translation: Tim was backed into an intellectual corner, could not logically babble his way out of it, and then started avoiding the issue entirely by trying to redefine the word 'opinion', for no logical reason.

I bailed from the conversation when it was obvious that Tim was clearly out of his depth.

I guess I was satisfied that the thread had reached a point where Tim was no longer able to support his arguments. He still hasn't succeeded in doing so.

Tim Baker wrote:
Perhaps the definition of a Tautology would help you here:

Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=tautology

Interesting. Yet another avoidance technique disguised as wisdom. By applying this definition incorrectly once again (as you did earlier with other definitions), you show that you are unable to argue logically, and your only defense is to pull out the dictionary and start throwing out random words that make you appear 'smart' or 'learned'. It's not working, Tim!

Nihilus wrote:
Personal experience is indeed anecdotal...however, to the extent that it exists in someone's personal interactions, it actually does "prove god" exists. This happens by mere interactions with said entity...particularly because it is being personified.

Note, however ,that this does not really determine what it is that "god" is in any sort of real way. Much in the same way that a child's imaginary unicorn pet is made real by their belief/interaction with it (which, although circular, does create its own "existence"). The unicorn is not a real thing by the common use of the term.

Ah, the fatal flaw. The Unicorn *does* exist if a number of people report interactions with a unicorn, which are almost identical in every way, and yet the descriptions of the unicorn could not have been communicated to each other by any means.

Nihilus wrote:
Now, dealing with things logically, there is no foundation for the belief in a god that is not without serious flaws.

such as?

Nihilus wrote:
So...even if you narrow a discussion of this with someone to strictly 'objective' logical parameters, you will often find that personal 'mystical' experience treats itself as a wild-card for the believer , since the "existence" is normally taken to a blanket level.

This statement does nothing to discount a common experience of God amongst individuals who are unknown to each other, yet describe their experience of God nearly identically. This phenomenon *can* be attributed to coincidence, which is, in scientific terms, statistically unlikely.

BCG wrote:
"son your ego is writing checks your soul can't cash"

Also, his ego is trying to sell products that his intellect doesn't have in stock.