Prove to me that your God exists.

  • #1127
    Thanks! :)
  • #1128

    Something is "wrong," if the actor would not prefer that his action be used against himself. Someone is "bad," if they habitually use violence (except in self-defense).


    So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?

    Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?
    "As far as my solo record, I don't want a gold record or anything, I'm happy to be small and to have the people appreciate the music who really like me for being me." - John Frusciante
  • #1129


    Something is "wrong," if the actor would not prefer that his action be used against himself. Someone is "bad," if they habitually use violence (except in self-defense).


    So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?

    Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?


    Truth is not absolute. Did people not once believe it true that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or that if you sailed far enough over the oceans, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth?

    The point I'm trying to make is that truth is indeed a subjective thing. That which we hold true and undeniable today, may well be proven wrong sometime in the future.

    Some more recent examples of so-called "truths" that have been proven absolutely false are the end-of-the-world prophecies, such the millennium doomsday belief that had many people thinking the world would come to an end at midnight on 31 December 1999, or that the end of the Mayan calendar at 2012-12-21 would bring about the Apocalypse.

    Yeah, right!
    Peter Alexander Dzomlija Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
  • #1130

    Truth is not absolute.

    Are you absolutely sure?

    You are viewing Truth completely wrong, when you say,

    Did people not once believe it true that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or that if you sailed far enough over the oceans, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth?


    Truth is independent of personal beliefs, as you have well shown. Otherwise, should we say that before Newton gravity didn’t exist? Truth is not subjective, beliefs are.Truth is: transcultural (i.e. 2+2=4); unchanging even though our beliefs about Truth change (i.e. When we began to believe the world was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn’t change, only our belief about the earth changed); and not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
    "As far as my solo record, I don't want a gold record or anything, I'm happy to be small and to have the people appreciate the music who really like me for being me." - John Frusciante
  • #1131
    When we began to believe the world was round instead of flat, the truth about the earth didn’t change, only our belief about the earth changed

    You are correct in what you say here. But allow me to expand on what I said earlier.

    People once believed the world was flat. The science and knowledge of the time limited them to that fact, and for them, it was an absolute truth, not a mere belief. The real truth was that the Earth was round, it orbits the sun, which in turn orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, etc...

    But still for them the Earth was flat. It was only many centuries later that the truth was challenged and people began to learn that the truths which influenced their lives so much needed to be re-evaluated.

    Much of what we hold true today, was indeed at some point nothing more than a solid belief in something, if even that.

    The Nazi's once held such high beliefs in their Aryan superiority, that it was accepted as truth. Anyone who said otherwise was considered a traitor. This "Truth" was so widely ingrained into the minds of the people, that it resulted in a war that cost 55,000,000 lives to be proven a falsehood.

    I guess the entire point I'm trying to make here (and in my previous post) is this: Regardless of our beliefs, whatever it is that we consider to be true, will at some point in the future perhaps be proven a falsehood.

    Truth itself does not change. Only that which we perceive as Truth does....
    Peter Alexander Dzomlija Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
  • #1132
    you are not talking about truth you are talking about facts...

    Truths are a subjective aspect, as can be proven in many tests. A mentally unstable man will be telling the truth without any doubt when he claims to have heard the voice of the devil telling him to do something... it is not a fact, but it is a truth, to him.

    The earth is an ovoid shape is a fact, not a truth. Trying to use the logically fallacies to show god's existence is what you are aiming for, which is a common point for those in a creationism / bible thumper position.

    but that can work both ways... if god is omnipotent then he must be able to make a rock he cannot let, which would mean is he is not omnipotent. And the argument from morality is quite amusing, since christians found it morally right and their god given duty to slaughter all the muslims they could find, as well as mayans, incas, aztecs, Aeti, and dozens of other indigenous peoples...

    Morality is a standard built upon by a society... an individual contributes to this morality by their actions and reactions, be it acceptance or rejection of those around themselves and their actions or reactions. So saying it is better to argue for god based upon morality is an eloquent way of saying "We cannot argue this in any real way so we will make shit up to try and sound smart and fit our opinion"
  • #1133

    you are not talking about truth you are talking about facts...

    Truths are a subjective aspect, as can be proven in many tests. A mentally unstable man will be telling the truth without any doubt when he claims to have heard the voice of the devil telling him to do something... it is not a fact, but it is a truth, to him.

    The earth is an ovoid shape is a fact, not a truth. Trying to use the logically fallacies to show god's existence is what you are aiming for, which is a common point for those in a creationism / bible thumper position.

    but that can work both ways... if god is omnipotent then he must be able to make a rock he cannot let, which would mean is he is not omnipotent. And the argument from morality is quite amusing, since christians found it morally right and their god given duty to slaughter all the muslims they could find, as well as mayans, incas, aztecs, Aeti, and dozens of other indigenous peoples...

    Morality is a standard built upon by a society... an individual contributes to this morality by their actions and reactions, be it acceptance or rejection of those around themselves and their actions or reactions. So saying it is better to argue for god based upon morality is an eloquent way of saying "We cannot argue this in any real way so we will make shit up to try and sound smart and fit our opinion"


    And Fact is not Truth? I fail to see the difference...

    The word "fact" can also be rendered (using a U.K. English Thesaurus) as "truth", "reality", "actuality" or "verity".
    Peter Alexander Dzomlija Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
  • #1134
    The proof is all around you.
    - I know that my Redeemer liveth, and as the last man He shall stand forth upon the earth -
    - - -
  • #1135
    Uh, where did that topic come from? 56 pages and haven't seen it since today.

    I remember a discussion in a newspaper about this recently, and someone said this: "If you had proof for god's existence, it wouldn't be called belief."

    There is no and there will never be proof, those who want to belief interpret the signs in a way to support their beliefs, those who don't believe in god will argue against it. To each his own, it would just be nice if both sides (atheists and believers) could stop attacking each other.
  • #1136

    Uh, where did that topic come from? 56 pages and haven't seen it since today.

    I remember a discussion in a newspaper about this recently, and someone said this: "If you had proof for god's existence, it wouldn't be called belief."

    There is no and there will never be proof, those who want to belief interpret the signs in a way to support their beliefs, those who don't believe in god will argue against it. To each his own, it would just be nice if both sides (atheists and believers) could stop attacking each other.


    Best of luck trying to get that to happen!

    As long as some people believe one thing, and others believe something else, there will always be conflict of some kind.

    That is human nature.

    The only way to eliminate the conflict, is to eliminate the entire human race. It may sound a little harsh using those words, but as long as humans exist, we will attack each other over our beliefs...
    Peter Alexander Dzomlija Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as you die, so shall I be Reborn...
  • #1137

    So then "right" and "wrong" are subjective to each person, rather than abiding by some absolute standard. And the only things that makes someone bad is if they are violent (except in self-defense)?


    Where are you finding subjectivity in my statements? The absolute standard of universalized behavior is that initiating force against another individual cannot ever be right except in self-defense, which is only caused by a violation of the rule in the first place.


    Would you agree that Truth is absolute? Regardless of our beliefs, biases, knowledge - Truth stands as a separate entity which is transcultural (such as 2 + 2 = 4) and unchanging. Would you agree?


    Sure, but what does truth have to do with my argument?


    Truth is not absolute. Did people not once believe it true that the Earth was the center of the universe? Or that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Or that if you sailed far enough over the oceans, you'd fall off the edge of the Earth?


    The fact that the senses are prone to error or that our empirical understanding of the world improves over time does not evidence the argument that there is no objective truth. It simply shows that seeking truth is an ongoing process.


    Some more recent examples of so-called "truths" that have been proven absolutely false are the end-of-the-world prophecies, such the millennium doomsday belief that had many people thinking the world would come to an end at midnight on 31 December 1999, or that the end of the Mayan calendar at 2012-12-21 would bring about the Apocalypse.


    I don't think any rational person today would have said that any of those things were likely, much less true.


    There is no and there will never be proof, those who want to belief interpret the signs in a way to support their beliefs, those who don't believe in god will argue against it. To each his own, it would just be nice if both sides (atheists and believers) could stop attacking each other.


    Then there is no and never will be any reason to suppose that a deity exists. It would be nice if we could agree on that, being that it is the reasonable conclusion. I don't mind if someone wants to entertain a fantasy; however, the claim to truth from said fantasy obstructs cultural progress for completely arbitrary reasons.


    As long as some people believe one thing, and others believe something else, there will always be conflict of some kind.

    That is human nature.

    The only way to eliminate the conflict, is to eliminate the entire human race. It may sound a little harsh using those words, but as long as humans exist, we will attack each other over our beliefs...


    "Human nature," is something that babies are born doing. Breathing, eating, sleeping, following their parent(s) around, etc. It is entirely illogical to assume that complex social cues like bigotry are natural genetic phenomena.

    As long as toxic culture exists, conflict will exist; however, we are not powerless to influence culture for the better.
  • #1138

    As long as some people believe one thing, and others believe something else, there will always be conflict of some kind.
    That is human nature.

    Tolerance! If all people would be tolerant there would be no conflicts. But here a problem emerges: tolerance opposes most religions in terms of belief. Most of them have the self-conception that their religion is the only true one. Such that tolerating other believes questions your own belief. So, yeah, you're somehow right.

    Anyhow:
    Belief only leads to stagnation, questioning causes progress.
  • #1139

    Belief only leads to stagnation, questioning causes progress.


    Well put!
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes