ForumGarden

Infinite Stop;1388944 wrote: First, I already gave you a proper def of "proof," on page 2. Must I repeat myself?


Yes you do, I have no idea what pagination you're using on your browser so "page 2" could be anywhere.

Whilst I'm waiting - is it an accepted definition within the English language or is it one you've made up? I've given you the English definition and you've dismissed it so who's definition are you using?

Infinite Stop;1388944 wrote: You say that a "truth can exist outside mass acceptance where it is a statement of the real world that exists outside of the accepted perception of reality." Well, what would you call a revelation of God? To a non-believer, that's exactly what a statement proclaiming a revelation of God is! You are burying yourself here.


Think Galileo. When Galileo supported Copernicus's theory that the sun was at the centre of the solar system the accepted perception of reality was that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Despite the fact that his statements were outside of mass acceptance they were true because they mapped to reality whereas accepted perception did not.

For the sin of stating the truth the Church killed him, that did not make his statements any the less true - truth exists outside of belief and is based in reality.

Infinite Stop;1388944 wrote: You then say that "subjective truth" is merely an opinion. Really? To all people, ALL truth is subjective truth. In the end, it is your personal perception that determines the quality and veracity of all truth. You can label it whatever you like, opinion or otherwise, it's still truth as conceived to the best of your ability. You then say that subjective truth is mere opinion and has no "universal applicability." On the contrary, the subjective truth of God is arguably the only truth that has universal applicability, as it pertains God, our very existence, and ultimately all existence. More than any event or law, the truth of God, whether subjective opinion or not, would be universally applicable to all that was, is, and ever will be.


Totally untrue. The measure of truth is how closely a statement mirrors reality. That exists outside of personal perception.

An individual can have a distorted perception and firmly believe the most unlikely things - that does not make them true. They have no universal applicability, they are an artefact of the distorted perception of the individual.

If you do not understand this then take a visit to your local psychiatric unit and take some time trying to reconcile the beliefs of the patients. If your personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth you will need to spend some time explaining how the disparate truths expressed can be true simultaneously.



Infinite Stop;1388944 wrote: Of course within the scientific paradigm that works. Unfortunately, since science is incapable of proving God, scientific methodology does not apply. A true, living sentient creator being cannot be deduced, or reduced to some equation. Any scientific or logical proof of God must necessarily rely very much on the presumption of that being's existence. Presumption is not proof. The best science can do is attempt to define God, and then attempt prove that God as defined. With such an approach we merely construe the data to see what we want to see (in this case God), and in the process commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. We could write an incredibly inspiring "proof" of God and then parade it down 5th Avenue. In the end it's nothing more than facts and figures on glossy pages. I describe such a "proof" as this as nothing more than a stillborn hope. In such a proof we declare, "We have found God!" However, all it would take is the innocence of a child to ask, "But where is He, Mommy; I don't see Him," and the proof goes in the garbage.


You are speaking English. Within English certain words have certain meanings. It is not a case of within the scientific paradigm or outside it, the word proof has a meaning.

We have agreed that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What you are trying to show is that revelation to an individual constitutes proof that God exists - I maintain that it does not and cannot. What does the above line of argument do to show that it does?

Infinite Stop;1388944 wrote: Science will never prove God. Revelation is the only way.


There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.

Bryn Mawr;1388953 wrote: Yes you do, I have no idea what pagination you're using on your browser so "page 2" could be anywhere.

Whilst I'm waiting - is it an accepted definition within the English language or is it one you've made up? I've given you the English definition and you've dismissed it so who's definition are you using?



Think Galileo. When Galileo supported Copernicus's theory that the sun was at the centre of the solar system the accepted perception of reality was that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Despite the fact that his statements were outside of mass acceptance they were true because they mapped to reality whereas accepted perception did not.

For the sin of stating the truth the Church killed him, that did not make his statements any the less true - truth exists outside of belief and is based in reality.



Totally untrue. The measure of truth is how closely a statement mirrors reality. That exists outside of personal perception.

An individual can have a distorted perception and firmly believe the most unlikely things - that does not make them true. They have no universal applicability, they are an artefact of the distorted perception of the individual.

If you do not understand this then take a visit to your local psychiatric unit and take some time trying to reconcile the beliefs of the patients. If your personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth you will need to spend some time explaining how the disparate truths expressed can be true simultaneously.

You are speaking English. Within English certain words have certain meanings. It is not a case of within the scientific paradigm or outside it, the word proof has a meaning.

We have agreed that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What you are trying to show is that revelation to an individual constitutes proof that God exists - I maintain that it does not and cannot. What does the above line of argument do to show that it does?

There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.


I'm quite pleased with your post, because it's at least respectable, but more importantly because I know that I can defeat it. Unfortunately I am trying to paint a house right now. So I'll have to wait until tomorrow, I guess. It's been fun so far. I hope you're not getting bitter because I'm kicking your intellectual butt in here. LOL

Infinite Stop;1388955 wrote: I'm quite pleased with your post, because it's at least respectable, but more importantly because I know that I can defeat it. Unfortunately I am trying to paint a house right now. So I'll have to wait until tomorrow, I guess. It's been fun so far. I hope you're not getting bitter because I'm kicking your intellectual butt in here. LOL


Glaswegian was equally much an ego-trip wannabee bully, it's sad to see another.

Infinite Stop;1388955 wrote: I'm quite pleased with your post, because it's at least respectable, but more importantly because I know that I can defeat it. Unfortunately I am trying to paint a house right now. So I'll have to wait until tomorrow, I guess. It's been fun so far. I hope you're not getting bitter because I'm kicking your intellectual butt in here. LOL


:wah:

I was going to make the obvious response to this but I won't bother - shall we leave the membership to make up their own minds.

Priceless

spot;1388956 wrote: Glaswegian was equally much an ego-trip wannabee bully, it's sad to see another.


Yes, it is sad. This was an interesting thread

theia;1388959 wrote: Yes, it is sad. This was an interesting thread


Fun whilst it lasted

Originally Posted by Infinite Stop

I'm quite pleased with your post, because it's at least respectable, but more importantly because I know that I can defeat it. Unfortunately I am trying to paint a house right now. So I'll have to wait until tomorrow, I guess. It's been fun so far. I hope you're not getting bitter because I'm kicking your intellectual butt in here. LOL

I just wanted to see it again.

I think this is the new christian approach/argument, to try to appear logical.

Bryn Mawr;1388953 wrote: Yes you do, I have no idea what pagination you're using on your browser so "page 2" could be anywhere.

Whilst I'm waiting - is it an accepted definition within the English language or is it one you've made up? I've given you the English definition and you've dismissed it so who's definition are you using?

Think Galileo. When Galileo supported Copernicus's theory that the sun was at the centre of the solar system the accepted perception of reality was that the Earth was at the centre of the universe. Despite the fact that his statements were outside of mass acceptance they were true because they mapped to reality whereas accepted perception did not.

For the sin of stating the truth the Church killed him, that did not make his statements any the less true - truth exists outside of belief and is based in reality.

Totally untrue. The measure of truth is how closely a statement mirrors reality. That exists outside of personal perception.

An individual can have a distorted perception and firmly believe the most unlikely things - that does not make them true. They have no universal applicability, they are an artefact of the distorted perception of the individual.

If you do not understand this then take a visit to your local psychiatric unit and take some time trying to reconcile the beliefs of the patients. If your personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth you will need to spend some time explaining how the disparate truths expressed can be true simultaneously.

You are speaking English. Within English certain words have certain meanings. It is not a case of within the scientific paradigm or outside it, the word proof has a meaning.

We have agreed that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. What you are trying to show is that revelation to an individual constitutes proof that God exists - I maintain that it does not and cannot. What does the above line of argument do to show that it does?

There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.


I really need to start by jumping straight to your last line. It's there that you shock me by agreeing with my argument, and in the process contradict yourself. If it wasn't so embarrassing it would be funny.

You say: There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.

Of course I agree with you (or should I say myself) Yes, I too say there can be no proof of God outside the individual. Neither science, nor math, nor argument alone will ever prove God or Its alleged attributes. So yes, I agree that a revelation cannot constitute PROOF outside of that individual. You just stated the crux of my argument in one line. I'm amazed that you had the audacity to use "proof" when referring to the individual who has had such an experience. You have been consistently declaring that subjective experience does not constitute proof, but opinion only. Now you concede that "proof" is in fact possible, but not outside the individual. Well, welcome to the club. I think what's happening here is that on some level--perhaps subconsciously--you know I'm right.

At this point I could just walk away, since you and I appear to be in total agreement. However, I want to take a peek again at the rest of your post just for kicks.

Let me start by saying that your Galileo anology does not apply. I've stated, and you agreed, that science cannot prove God. If knowledge of God does come via revelation as I suggest, then that too would not be subject to scientific analysis. A revelation is a divinely caused miracle and therefore is outside the perview of scientific inquiry. A revelation is not a theory or argument that is subject to the laws of science; it is God-inspired miracle which causes one to attain certain knowledge of God. So again, your Galileo analogy is not relevant.

You also say that truth exists outside of belief and is based in reality.

I don't think so. Truth exists as a function of belief, and both truth and belief are born of cognition. I don't understand you when you say that truth exists "outside" belief, when in reality one is dependent on the other and both are from the same place: Our brains. If there was no "belief" then there could be no truth. They should not be considered "outside" each other, but should instead be considered inclusive.

You later say that "The measure of truth is how closely a statement mirrors reality. That exists outside of personal perception"

You may be right about the measure of truth being dependent on how well a statement mirrors reality. But I can't see how you think that it is independent of personal perception. By reality you of course mean existence. Now, existence is always changing, growing, shrinking, dying, revolving, orbiting, being born...Since existence, or "reality" if you prefer, is always changing, so must man's perception be liable to change. Consequently, if our perception is subject to change, so too must our "truths" be subject to change. Ones perception then is indispensible to understanding the truth of reality, since reality is always changing and must be filtered through perception to determine current truth. Truth is not objective and unvarying; it is more like a shifting sand, and constantly conforming to new data, theories, and other "truths." Truth then cannot be based solely on how well it "mirrors" reality and also be independent of personal perception, because our perception is the gateway through which ever-changing reality is known. As our perception of reality changes, so does our derived truths.

Now, of course people can be in total agreement about truths, many truths. But this fact in no way diminishes the value of personal perception as our means of interpreting reality and formulating "truths" in our minds.

Then when talking about "distorted perception" you say, "If you do not understand this then take a visit to your local psychiatric unit and take some time trying to reconcile the beliefs of the patients."

Let me just say quickly, I can't count the times someone has presented as a counter-argument the insanity of the mentally ill. But this thread is not about the mentally ill or their capacity for irrational thought. The crazy thoughts of the mentally ill can hardly be a firm foundation for any rational discussion; unless of course we are discussing the mentally ill or mental health in general. One can undermine almost any discussion by placing their opponent's argument in the hands of the mentally ill. I think there's room for compassion without us having to accommodate our genuine attempt at rational discussion by including the distorted thinking of the mentally disadvantaged.

You also say, "If your personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth you will need to spend some time explaining how the disparate truths expressed can be true simultaneously".

Well, you answered your own question. It is BECAUSE personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth that disparate truths "can be true simultaneously." Two people pondering the same event or idea might grasp it from their own unique vantage, thereby recognizing elements or aspects that the other cannot. Both are "seeing" the same event, but based on their intelligence, knowledge base, creativity, or viewpoint, they might conclude "disparate truths."

You've done your best to discredit my claim that a revelation is little more than opinion, and to relegate perception to an "outside" realm relative to truth and reality, but I think I've explained why you are wrong. Truth and belief are inclusive, and both are based on ever-changing reality, from which we derive our "truths," as perceived. If I am an atheist, and I experience a revelation of God, I have will have a belief in my new-found truth, which I will have perceived from my changed reality. And the miracle will be that I will know without doubt that God--and only God--was the cause of that changed reality. In that I will have my "proof" of God.

Oh, and about the definition of "proof." I already gave you the proper connotation. I'm not going to chase after you. You're not stupid. Go look it up yourself.

Infinite Stop;1389094 wrote: I really need to start by jumping straight to your last line. It's there that you shock me by agreeing with my argument, and in the process contradict yourself. If it wasn't so embarrassing it would be funny.

You say: There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.

Of course I agree with you (or should I say myself) Yes, I too say there can be no proof of God outside the individual. Neither science, nor math, nor argument alone will ever prove God or Its alleged attributes. So yes, I agree that a revelation cannot constitute PROOF outside of that individual. You just stated the crux of my argument in one line. I'm amazed that you had the audacity to use "proof" when referring to the individual who has had such an experience. You have been consistently declaring that subjective experience does not constitute proof, but opinion only. Now you concede that "proof" is in fact possible, but not outside the individual. Well, welcome to the club. I think what's happening here is that on some level--perhaps subconsciouslySaying a person can become "convinced" is not saying it's proof.

The rest of the diatribe, I have no interest in.

I'm not looking to intrude, Bryn, but I didn't want to let that one go.

Infinite Stop;1389094 wrote: I really need to start by jumping straight to your last line. It's there that you shock me by agreeing with my argument, and in the process contradict yourself. If it wasn't so embarrassing it would be funny.

You say: There is not proof of God, revelation might convince an individual but cannot constitute proof outside of that individual.

Of course I agree with you (or should I say myself) Yes, I too say there can be no proof of God outside the individual. Neither science, nor math, nor argument alone will ever prove God or Its alleged attributes. So yes, I agree that a revelation cannot constitute PROOF outside of that individual. You just stated the crux of my argument in one line. I'm amazed that you had the audacity to use "proof" when referring to the individual who has had such an experience. You have been consistently declaring that subjective experience does not constitute proof, but opinion only. Now you concede that "proof" is in fact possible, but not outside the individual. Well, welcome to the club. I think what's happening here is that on some level--perhaps subconsciously--you know I'm right.

At this point I could just walk away, since you and I appear to be in total agreement. However, I want to take a peek again at the rest of your post just for kicks.

Let me start by saying that your Galileo anology does not apply. I've stated, and you agreed, that science cannot prove God. If knowledge of God does come via revelation as I suggest, then that too would not be subject to scientific analysis. A revelation is a divinely caused miracle and therefore is outside the perview of scientific inquiry. A revelation is not a theory or argument that is subject to the laws of science; it is God-inspired miracle which causes one to attain certain knowledge of God. So again, your Galileo analogy is not relevant.

You also say that truth exists outside of belief and is based in reality.

I don't think so. Truth exists as a function of belief, and both truth and belief are born of cognition. I don't understand you when you say that truth exists "outside" belief, when in reality one is dependent on the other and both are from the same place: Our brains. If there was no "belief" then there could be no truth. They should not be considered "outside" each other, but should instead be considered inclusive.

You later say that "The measure of truth is how closely a statement mirrors reality. That exists outside of personal perception"

You may be right about the measure of truth being dependent on how well a statement mirrors reality. But I can't see how you think that it is independent of personal perception. By reality you of course mean existence. Now, existence is always changing, growing, shrinking, dying, revolving, orbiting, being born...Since existence, or "reality" if you prefer, is always changing, so must man's perception be liable to change. Consequently, if our perception is subject to change, so too must our "truths" be subject to change. Ones perception then is indispensible to understanding the truth of reality, since reality is always changing and must be filtered through perception to determine current truth. Truth is not objective and unvarying; it is more like a shifting sand, and constantly conforming to new data, theories, and other "truths." Truth then cannot be based solely on how well it "mirrors" reality and also be independent of personal perception, because our perception is the gateway through which ever-changing reality is known. As our perception of reality changes, so does our derived truths.

Now, of course people can be in total agreement about truths, many truths. But this fact in no way diminishes the value of personal perception as our means of interpreting reality and formulating "truths" in our minds.

Then when talking about "distorted perception" you say, "If you do not understand this then take a visit to your local psychiatric unit and take some time trying to reconcile the beliefs of the patients."

Let me just say quickly, I can't count the times someone has presented as a counter-argument the insanity of the mentally ill. But this thread is not about the mentally ill or their capacity for irrational thought. The crazy thoughts of the mentally ill can hardly be a firm foundation for any rational discussion; unless of course we are discussing the mentally ill or mental health in general. One can undermine almost any discussion by placing their opponent's argument in the hands of the mentally ill. I think there's room for compassion without us having to accommodate our genuine attempt at rational discussion by including the distorted thinking of the mentally disadvantaged.

You also say, "If your personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth you will need to spend some time explaining how the disparate truths expressed can be true simultaneously".

Well, you answered your own question. It is BECAUSE personal perception determines the quality and veracity of all truth that disparate truths "can be true simultaneously." Two people pondering the same event or idea might grasp it from their own unique vantage, thereby recognizing elements or aspects that the other cannot. Both are "seeing" the same event, but based on their intelligence, knowledge base, creativity, or viewpoint, they might conclude "disparate truths."

You've done your best to discredit my claim that a revelation is little more than opinion, and to relegate perception to an "outside" realm relative to truth and reality, but I think I've explained why you are wrong. Truth and belief are inclusive, and both are based on ever-changing reality, from which we derive our "truths," as perceived. If I am an atheist, and I experience a revelation of God, I have will have a belief in my new-found truth, which I will have perceived from my changed reality. And the miracle will be that I will know without doubt that God--and only God--was the cause of that changed reality. In that I will have my "proof" of God.

Oh, and about the definition of "proof." I already gave you the proper connotation. I'm not going to chase after you. You're not stupid. Go look it up yourself.


OK, let us take this very slowly.

We are trying to communicate, in order to communicate we need to share a common language.

The language we are using is English and in English words have certain meanings - until we can agree the meanings of the words we are using then there is no communication.

Let us concentrate on three words that appear to be the cause of confusion within this conversation, proof, truth and belief. On top of that I'll throw in another two, fact and reality.

Reality. The universe as it actually exists. It is not necessarily what is perceived to exist it is what lies behind the perceptions.

Fact. An axiomatic item of information. A self evident datum. If two people do not share the same set of facts then agreement will be impossible - indeed, communication will be almost impossible.

Truth. An absolute value. A statement is true or it is false or it relates to a matter of opinion in which case it is neither true nor false. It is true if and only if it can be proven from agreed facts and matches reality. If a statement is true in the mind of one person but false in the mind of another then either one is mistaken or it is a belief rather than a truth.

Proof. A logical chain or reasoning that allows a statement to be assigned a value of true or false.

Belief. A matter of opinion held to be true by an individual or group of individuals but not capable of being proven.



From the Oxford Dictionary :-

reality



Pronunciation: /rɪˈalɪti/

noun (plural realities)

[mass noun]

1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them:

fact



Pronunciation: /fakt/

noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true:

truth



Pronunciation: /truːθ/

noun (plural truths /truːðz, truːθs/)

[mass noun]

the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation

(also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:

proof



Pronunciation: /pruːf/

noun

1 [mass noun] evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement:

belief



Pronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/

noun

1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:





Given the above definitions I make the following statements that I believe to be true :-

Revelation as you have described it is internal and unprovable.

Being unprovable it is a belief, not a truth.

A quickie.

I clipped these definitions from your last post.

proof

Pronunciation: /pruːf/

noun 1 [mass noun] evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement

That's right. In this case the evidence establishes the fact of God's existence, and that EVIDENCE is in the experience as self-evident truth. Why do you deny a person the right and ability to know God via a revelation as truth attained in the highest degree? You don't seem to deny the possibility that if God exists that God could convey its existence if it desired. After all a child could do as much; why can't God? In order for a revelation to be truly of God, then any evidence for God must be in the experience. The "proof" occurs in the mind as a realization of God as a result of that experience.

You also gave this def for "proof."

Proof. A logical chain or reasoning that allows a statement to be assigned a value of true or false.

The logical chain or reasoning occurs in the form of a cognitive response to the experience in which it is realized that nothing other than God could have caused the experience; it is a concrete intuition that compels knowledge of God with immediacy and certitude. Reasoning need not be a long and tiresome argument. It could be as simple as deducing "wet" from water. In this case, it is as simple as knowing the intangible God in a tangible experience.

Let's look at your def of "fact."

fact

Pronunciation: /fakt/

noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true:

Fact is a "thing" that is known or proved to be true. In this case, the "thing" is God, and that God is KNOWN and TRUE to the one who has had the experience. And just because they cannot prove that known fact to another in no way renders it any less known or true. That's the way it must be, because the event is a divinely caused miracle and not subject to logical or scientific proof.

Now your def of "belief."

belief

Pronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/

noun

1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:

A person that has such an experience will accept or believe God's existence to be true because knowledge of God will have been attained in the experience. I see no conflict here with your def of "belief."

Now "truth."

truth

Pronunciation: /truːθ/

noun (plural truths /truːðz, truːθs/)

[mass noun]

the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation

(also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:

The experiencer's "reality" is altered in the experience from a state of NOT knowing God to a state of knowing God; that's what a revelation is, by definition. The truth of God is then--factually speaking--in accordance with reality as known in the experience. If you burned your arm and you realized it hurt, would you not call that reality? I think you would. For some reason you believe that if God affects one with certainty and from that they realize God, that somehow that's different from the burn on the arm. I don't get that at all.

Now "reality."

reality

Pronunciation: /rɪˈalɪti/

noun (plural realities)

[mass noun]

1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them

Well, that is what I said. By reality you meant things (a.k.a. "existence,") as they actually exist. But of course, how it actually exists will be determined via our perception. What we believe to be true existence is always filtered through perception and is constantly changing throughout history. What was real concerning the heavens, for example, 2 thousand years ago is not the same reality we have today. Our changing reality is due in part to our changing perceptions. A revelation is an altered perception of reality that causes one to know God.

I'm not sure; was this your way of ignoring the fact that I slaughtered your last post. Anyway, thanks for the English lesson.

Infinite Stop;1388926 wrote: Let me ask this: If you believe that the world is too screwed up for there still to exist a living, loving God, then there's little point in you discussing the existence of God. However, if you are like many others who believe that, in spite of the poor state of the world, that there may still exist a living supreme being, then the argument from evil should be ancillary to the discussion.


I don't appreciate your dismissing the argument from evil without discussing it. I didn't use it to demonstrate that there may still exist a living supreme being, I used it to construct a simple and watertight logical proof that there can't be if you accept the Christian axiom of God's goodness and omnipotence. Throwing out either of those root concepts from Christian dogma leaves behind a far more interesting religion, believe me, given that it leaves Christianity with no God other than what's revealed from within a person in response to personal experience. A whole shed-load of dogmatic terminology needs redefining at that point.

As for Bryn's notion that perhaps the tsunami and its quarter million consequent deaths was the least worst option, I don't buy it and again on logical grounds. The cumulative weight of all Divinely avoidable disasters falsifies "the possibility of all of them being the least worst option" beyond reasonable doubt, if they existed there are would be too many of them and no normally-worse cases. The bell-curve comparing disaster severity with degrees of good fortune would be completely skewed, and I suggest it's not skewed at all. I suggest the bell curve can only be normal if there's no intervention to mitigate disasters, and that it is.

Infinite Stop;1389137 wrote: A quickie.

I clipped these definitions from your last post.

proof

Pronunciation: /pruːf/

noun 1 [mass noun] evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement

That's right. In this case the evidence establishes the fact of God's existence, and that EVIDENCE is in the experience as self-evident truth. Why do you deny a person the right and ability to know God via a revelation as truth attained in the highest degree? You don't seem to deny the possibility that if God exists that God could convey its existence if it desired. After all a child could do as much; why can't God? In order for a revelation to be truly of God, then any evidence for God must be in the experience. The "proof" occurs in the mind as a realization of God as a result of that experience.

You also gave this def for "proof."

Proof. A logical chain or reasoning that allows a statement to be assigned a value of true or false.

The logical chain or reasoning occurs in the form of a cognitive response to the experience in which it is realized that nothing other than God could have caused the experience; it is a concrete intuition that compels knowledge of God with immediacy and certitude. Reasoning need not be a long and tiresome argument. It could be as simple as deducing "wet" from water. In this case, it is as simple as knowing the intangible God in a tangible experience.

Let's look at your def of "fact."

fact

Pronunciation: /fakt/

noun

a thing that is known or proved to be true:

Fact is a "thing" that is known or proved to be true. In this case, the "thing" is God, and that God is KNOWN and TRUE to the one who has had the experience. And just because they cannot prove that known fact to another in no way renders it any less known or true. That's the way it must be, because the event is a divinely caused miracle and not subject to logical or scientific proof.

Now your def of "belief."

belief

Pronunciation: /bɪˈliːf/

noun

1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:

A person that has such an experience will accept or believe God's existence to be true because knowledge of God will have been attained in the experience. I see no conflict here with your def of "belief."

Now "truth."

truth

Pronunciation: /truːθ/

noun (plural truths /truːðz, truːθs/)

[mass noun]

the quality or state of being true: he had to accept the truth of her accusation

(also the truth) that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality:

The experiencer's "reality" is altered in the experience from a state of NOT knowing God to a state of knowing God; that's what a revelation is, by definition. The truth of God is then--factually speaking--in accordance with reality as known in the experience. If you burned your arm and you realized it hurt, would you not call that reality? I think you would. For some reason you believe that if God affects one with certainty and from that they realize God, that somehow that's different from the burn on the arm. I don't get that at all.

Now "reality."

reality

Pronunciation: /rɪˈalɪti/

noun (plural realities)

[mass noun]

1 the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them

Well, that is what I said. By reality you meant things (a.k.a. "existence,") as they actually exist. But of course, how it actually exists will be determined via our perception. What we believe to be true existence is always filtered through perception and is constantly changing throughout history. What was real concerning the heavens, for example, 2 thousand years ago is not the same reality we have today. Our changing reality is due in part to our changing perceptions. A revelation is an altered perception of reality that causes one to know God.

I'm not sure; was this your way of ignoring the fact that I slaughtered your last post. Anyway, thanks for the English lesson.


It is quite obvious that whilst we are talking in two different languages there can be no meaningful communication and that whilst you insist on selective quoting there can be no agreement on the language we are using.

For example, equating proof with intuition is nonsense and suggesting that belief is evidence that provides proof is a self-reinforcing argument, a logical fallacy.

In you treatment of fact you conveniently ignore the point, that facts are mutually agreed axioms or they have, in themselves, to be proven. You cannot say "I know this to be true therefore it is proven".

With truth you again conveniently drop the parts that get in your way, truth is not "in the experiencer's reality" it is an absolute that has to be proven.

We appear to reach the main sticking point with reality where we are diametrically opposed. You say that reality is whatever you perceive it to be - that way lies madness. The universe exists without us to give it form, the tree falls even when there is no-one in the forest, all the perception in the world seeing the sun revolving round the Earth does not make it true. There can be no meeting of minds given such a disagreement over fundamentals.

For example, equating proof with intuition is nonsense and suggesting that belief is evidence that provides proof is a self-reinforcing argument, a logical fallacy.[Clipped from Bryn Mawr]I clipped this because, to be fair, I can understand where you are coming from. Intuition hardly seems to be the means of obtaining "proof" of God. But ya know what? it doesn't get any better than that: Intuition is the heart of the revelation, I truly believe. It's going to be the intuitive mind that makes the connection between the experience and God. There's simply no way to logically or scientifically analyze the experience and deduce God. But I don't believe this in any way diminishes the value of the experience. I'll tell you what a revelation is NOT: it is not an experience that is so amazing that it allows one to deduce God. Even if I were to be healed in response to prayer, let's say, that still isn't proof of God. There could be any number of reasons that could account for the healing that don't rely on a supreme being. The true miracle of the revelation occurs in the mind during the experience when God is realized--with immediacy and certitude. Again, the realization should be immediate and without doubt; if the person had to ponder the experience to infer God as cause, then I say that's not a revelation. If one has to make a mental list of the elements of the experience before they infer God, then they are merely presuming God. Having a fancy experience or healing--in and of itself--cannot be proof of God, I say; for the same reason miracles cannot be proof of God. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

That's where intuition comes in. Since God cannot be deduced from the experience without also presuming God, then one must know God as a matter of intuition. God has granted knowledge of Its existence, yet that experience cannot be proven, not even to ones self. Through the sheer power of intuition, the reality of God in the experience will transcend all doubt. The person will know, and they will know that they know.

That is the heart of the revelation.

I'm saying that it must be this way, unless you can think of something better. If you ever come to know God, then I say that it will come to you as a gift from God in a revelation, and it will be an intuitive cognition that connects you to the reality of God.

I guarantee you, that if you are looking for any "proof" better than that for God, than you will be burning a lot of gas for nothing.

You may be the only one that took this thread seriously. I really don't know where to go with this from here. Unless I deepen my understanding of epistemology I doubt I could make myself any clearer.

Infinite Stop;1389257 wrote: I'm saying that it must be this way, unless you can think of something better. I can!

Originally Posted by Infinite Stop

I'm saying that it must be this way, unless you can think of something better


Ahso!;1389262 wrote: I can!


I'll be in the lounge waiting.

Don't bother yourself with God and people who believe in God, offer reality in your posts instead. There's a fascinating world out there and even though you think there's a more fascinating one in your head right now, the real one is much more interesting. You and I? We're so tiny and temporary in the scheme of it all, you'll miss all the fun.

Exploring life is a better way to enjoy yourself rather than playing gotcha word games. But you're young and full of yourself right now. Just put what I've written in the back of your mind and recall it later when you finally do realize you've been wasting a lot of precious time.

Ahso!;1389266 wrote: Don't bother yourself with God and people who believe in God, offer reality in your posts instead. There's a fascinating world out there and even though you think there's a more fascinating one in your head right now, the real one is much more interesting. You and I? We're so tiny and temporary in the scheme of it all, you'll miss all the fun.

Exploring life is a better way to enjoy yourself rather than playing gotcha word games. But you're young and full of yourself right now. Just put what I've written in the back of your mind and recall it later when you finally do realize you've been wasting a lot of precious time.


You don't seem to be taking your own advice. You are in here more than me.--LOL

Just because I am seeking God doesn't mean I am ignoring the "fascinating world," or that I live in some sort of fantasy world, as you suggest. And I'll say candidly, you seem awfully sure of your non-belief in God. You can't be any more certain in your unbelief than one in their belief. You can't prove the negative of God's existence, that's impossible. Many thousands, maybe millions, have professed a knowledge of God, as a result of a healings; and there are countless thousands of NDE testimonies that speak of meeting God and deceased relatives in the "afterlife." Yeah, yeah, I know that's not proof that God exists or that our relatives survive death in another dimension. However, I'm not so sure of myself that I can dismiss the very real possibility that God exists and that I will live for eternity in another realm. Like you say, there's a "fascinating world" out there. I'm simply trying to explore that world with an open mind. Are you open minded?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.~from Shakespeare's Hamlet

Infinite Stop;1389274 wrote: You don't seem to be taking your own advice. You are in here more than me.--LOLSee! Here's an example of your delusional thought process. You've made 24 posts in this thread so far and this is my tenth, not to mention the fact that yours are rather bloviated as well.

Ahso!;1389276 wrote: See! Here's an example of your delusional thought process. You've made 24 posts in this thread so far and this is my tenth, not to mention the fact that yours are rather bloviated as well.


BLOVIATED? lol

Hey, everyone, LOOK AT ME! I'm all BLOVIATED! ha ha ha ha ha

Infinite Stop;1389282 wrote: BLOVIATED? lol

Hey, everyone, LOOK AT ME! I'm all BLOVIATED! ha ha ha ha ha
Infinite Stop;1389261 wrote: Show me God's love in action, clearly and without doubt, and I will believe. :wah:

Originally Posted by Infinite Stop

Show me God's love in action, clearly and without doubt, and I will believe.


Ahso!;1389313 wrote: :wah:


I've already experienced God's love in action, that's why I "know." But mere speaking of love is not proof of anything more than our capacity for love. I told you, when I argue it is objectively, or at least I try to be objective. There may be another thread in which I forsake impartiality to argue my position fully and without compromise. (Like I am in Paranormal Science.)

In another forum I used a certain scenario to prove my point that science will never proof God. I'm going to repeat it here because I think it has merit.

Let's say that the world's top scientists came up with a scientific proof that the universe could not have created itself; that is, it can't be its own reason for existing. Not only that, the proof is so well-written and easy to understand that even average folk can understand it. As a result, there's a world-wide consensus that the universe could not have created itself. This is seen as a great victory for God-seekers because it's clear that God must certainly exist. After all if the universe is not its own reason for existing then, gosh darn, it must have been created by a being with sufficient power and intellegence to the task. The world celebrates, "WE have found God! Yippeeeeeee!"

But have we found God with that scientific proof? It is my contention that NO, we have NOT proven God. The truth is clearly that we argue from ignorance. The simple fact is, we still don't know the cause of the universe. It's very easy to imagine folks after a while having doubts about the efficacy of the "proof." People would start asking the same old questions, like where is He? and of what is that God made? and how do we know that it is still living? and how did that God come to be? Gradually the euphoria would be reduced to a CNN soundbite, and the search would resume.

My contention is this, that my above scenario would be the greatest achievment of science in our pursuit of the divine. Put another way, the closest science could ever get to proving God--short of a direct communication from God--would be to prove the universe could not be its own reason for existing. Yet, even this great discovery could not prove God, because it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Unless God gives us at least one convincing "Hello," then God has still not been proven.

I'm convinced this is the best science could ever do, because, I ask, what event, miracle or fact is there that is greater than the universe considered en masse? Nothing, I say. Everything else is anticlimatic to that greatest of all puzzles: the universe itself. The universe itself is the greatest "event, fact, and miracle" that ever was or is; so if that cannot be sufficient leverage in our search for God, then neither will anything else within the material universe bring us to God.

That's why I say, revelation is the only means of ever knowing God. If you want a loving God, a powerful God, a forgiving God, an intelligent God, or a God of justice, then you must personally experience that love, forgiveness, intelligence, or justice. There is no other way.

Infinite Stop;1389358 wrote: In another forum I used a certain scenario to prove my point that science will never proof God. I'm going to repeat it here because I think it has merit.

Let's say that the world's top scientists came up with a scientific proof that the universe could not have created itself; that is, it can't be its own reason for existing. Not only that, the proof is so well-written and easy to understand that even average folk can understand it. As a result, there's a world-wide consensus that the universe could not have created itself. This is seen as a great victory for God-seekers because it's clear that God must certainly exist. After all if the universe is not its own reason for existing then, gosh darn, it must have been created by a being with sufficient power and intellegence to the task. The world celebrates, "WE have found God! Yippeeeeeee!"

But have we found God with that scientific proof? It is my contention that NO, we have NOT proven God. The truth is clearly that we argue from ignorance. The simple fact is, we still don't know the cause of the universe. It's very easy to imagine folks after a while having doubts about the efficacy of the "proof." People would start asking the same old questions, like where is He? and of what is that God made? and how do we know that it is still living? and how did that God come to be? Gradually the euphoria would be reduced to a CNN soundbite, and the search would resume.

My contention is this, that my above scenario would be the greatest achievment of science in our pursuit of the divine. Put another way, the closest science could ever get to proving God--short of a direct communication from God--would be to prove the universe could not be its own reason for existing. Yet, even this great discovery could not prove God, because it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Unless God gives us at least one convincing "Hello," then God has still not been proven.

I'm convinced this is the best science could ever do, because, I ask, what event, miracle or fact is there that is greater than the universe considered en masse? Nothing, I say. Everything else is anticlimatic to that greatest of all puzzles: the universe itself. The universe itself is the greatest "event, fact, and miracle" that ever was or is; so if that cannot be sufficient leverage in our search for God, then neither will anything else within the material universe bring us to God.

That's why I say, revelation is the only means of ever knowing God. If you want a loving God, a powerful God, a forgiving God, an intelligent God, or a God of justice, then you must personally experience that love, forgiveness, intelligence, or justice. There is no other way.How and at what point would science admit that the universe could not have created itself? And what exactly do you mean by the universe creating itself?

Originally Posted by Infinite Stop

In another forum I used a certain scenario to prove my point that science will never proof God. I'm going to repeat it here because I think it has merit.

Let's say that the world's top scientists came up with a scientific proof that the universe could not have created itself; that is, it can't be its own reason for existing. Not only that, the proof is so well-written and easy to understand that even average folk can understand it. As a result, there's a world-wide consensus that the universe could not have created itself. This is seen as a great victory for God-seekers because it's clear that God must certainly exist. After all if the universe is not its own reason for existing then, gosh darn, it must have been created by a being with sufficient power and intellegence to the task. The world celebrates, "WE have found God! Yippeeeeeee!"

But have we found God with that scientific proof? It is my contention that NO, we have NOT proven God. The truth is clearly that we argue from ignorance. The simple fact is, we still don't know the cause of the universe. It's very easy to imagine folks after a while having doubts about the efficacy of the "proof." People would start asking the same old questions, like where is He? and of what is that God made? and how do we know that it is still living? and how did that God come to be? Gradually the euphoria would be reduced to a CNN soundbite, and the search would resume.

My contention is this, that my above scenario would be the greatest achievment of science in our pursuit of the divine. Put another way, the closest science could ever get to proving God--short of a direct communication from God--would be to prove the universe could not be its own reason for existing. Yet, even this great discovery could not prove God, because it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. Unless God gives us at least one convincing "Hello," then God has still not been proven.

I'm convinced this is the best science could ever do, because, I ask, what event, miracle or fact is there that is greater than the universe considered en masse? Nothing, I say. Everything else is anticlimatic to that greatest of all puzzles: the universe itself. The universe itself is the greatest "event, fact, and miracle" that ever was or is; so if that cannot be sufficient leverage in our search for God, then neither will anything else within the material universe bring us to God.

That's why I say, revelation is the only means of ever knowing God. If you want a loving God, a powerful God, a forgiving God, an intelligent God, or a God of justice, then you must personally experience that love, forgiveness, intelligence, or justice. There is no other way.


Ahso!;1389362 wrote: How and at what point would science admit that the universe could not have created itself? And what exactly do you mean by the universe creating itself?


The exact details of when that point comes is not important. My scenario makes the point that regardless of the methodology used to reach the conclusion that the universe did not--could not--be its own reason for existing is all that's required. I'm simply saying, that's the best science could ever do; whether or not science could actually reach that conclusion with a high degree of confidence is irrelevant. The point I'm making is, that even if science could do that magic and prove to the majority that the universe could not be its own reason for existing, it would still not bring us to God. In the end, God must want to be "found," or It will forever remain a mystery to us.

What I mean by the universe not creating itself, I mean just this: the material universe is not its own reason for existing. It would be a tall order for science to prove such a thing, of course. But even if it could...AHHHH, it still wouldn't be proof of God. So the point is, that even if we could do the unbelievable with our science by proving the universe did not create itself, we are still no better off in regard to our knowledge of God. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance if we use such a scientific conclusion to "prove" God.

Infinite Stop;1389367 wrote:

What I mean by the universe not creating itself, I mean just this: the material universe is not its own reason for existing. It would be a tall order for science to prove such a thing, of course. But even if it could...AHHHH, it still wouldn't be proof of God. So the point is, that even if we could do the unbelievable with our science by proving the universe did not create itself, we are still no better off in regard to our knowledge of God. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance if we use such a scientific conclusion to "prove" God.


Science can not prove the existence of God because God is a general term for He who is inconceivable, omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, full of knowledge, full of opulence, all- merciful and all-powerful. He is without cause. He is in fact the cause of all causes. His name is Govinda-the primeval Lord. He is Krishna. Here`s how science can prove God exists. By gathering facts, information, etc from Govinda, Krishna of India. That`s not difficult. The word God is a deception. Just like if you call me Doctor. You should call me Doctor Rajakrsna.

Infinite Stop;1389257 wrote: I clipped this because, to be fair, I can understand where you are coming from. Intuition hardly seems to be the means of obtaining "proof" of God. But ya know what? it doesn't get any better than that: Intuition is the heart of the revelation, I truly believe. It's going to be the intuitive mind that makes the connection between the experience and God. There's simply no way to logically or scientifically analyze the experience and deduce God. But I don't believe this in any way diminishes the value of the experience. I'll tell you what a revelation is NOT: it is not an experience that is so amazing that it allows one to deduce God. Even if I were to be healed in response to prayer, let's say, that still isn't proof of God. There could be any number of reasons that could account for the healing that don't rely on a supreme being. The true miracle of the revelation occurs in the mind during the experience when God is realized--with immediacy and certitude. Again, the realization should be immediate and without doubt; if the person had to ponder the experience to infer God as cause, then I say that's not a revelation. If one has to make a mental list of the elements of the experience before they infer God, then they are merely presuming God. Having a fancy experience or healing--in and of itself--cannot be proof of God, I say; for the same reason miracles cannot be proof of God. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

That's where intuition comes in. Since God cannot be deduced from the experience without also presuming God, then one must know God as a matter of intuition. God has granted knowledge of Its existence, yet that experience cannot be proven, not even to ones self. Through the sheer power of intuition, the reality of God in the experience will transcend all doubt. The person will know, and they will know that they know.

That is the heart of the revelation.

I'm saying that it must be this way, unless you can think of something better. If you ever come to know God, then I say that it will come to you as a gift from God in a revelation, and it will be an intuitive cognition that connects you to the reality of God.

I guarantee you, that if you are looking for any "proof" better than that for God, than you will be burning a lot of gas for nothing.

You may be the only one that took this thread seriously. I really don't know where to go with this from here. Unless I deepen my understanding of epistemology I doubt I could make myself any clearer.


I agree with this thread in its entirety.

Infinite Stop;1389367 wrote: The exact details of when that point comes is not important. My scenario makes the point that regardless of the methodology used to reach the conclusion that the universe did not--could not--be its own reason for existing is all that's required. I'm simply saying, that's the best science could ever do; whether or not science could actually reach that conclusion with a high degree of confidence is irrelevant. The point I'm making is, that even if science could do that magic and prove to the majority that the universe could not be its own reason for existing, it would still not bring us to God. In the end, God must want to be "found," or It will forever remain a mystery to us.

What I mean by the universe not creating itself, I mean just this: the material universe is not its own reason for existing. It would be a tall order for science to prove such a thing, of course. But even if it could...AHHHH, it still wouldn't be proof of God. So the point is, that even if we could do the unbelievable with our science by proving the universe did not create itself, we are still no better off in regard to our knowledge of God. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance if we use such a scientific conclusion to "prove" God.You appear to think science is out to prove (or disprove) God. That could not be further from the truth. Science, in the context of Cosmology is simply acknowledging what is observed and attempting to understand how it occurred through experimentation and calculation. God has nothing at all to do with it.

Also, if I understand correctly the Universe did not create itself: the Universe is the consequence of The Big Bang.

One last thing. What in the world do you mean by: "the material universe is not its own reason for existing."?

Frankly speaking, you holy rollers talk gibberish.

God and religion is just an excuse for having to die.....man made deity.

Pappy;1389786 wrote: God and religion is just an excuse for having to die.....man made deity.


Perfectly put, there's no waste, just the good news. I look forward to reading more from you.

spot;1389806 wrote: Perfectly put, there's no waste, just the good news. I look forward to reading more from you.


Not quite sure what your agreeing with? The debate is "circular logic".

Christian: God exist.

Atheists: How do you know God exist?

Christian: Because the Bible says so.

Atheists: How do you know the Bible is true?

Christian: Because God says so.

An age old problem. The only way that anyone can prove a God is with the Bible which cannot be used to prove itself.

Bryn Mawr;1389562 wrote: I agree with this thread in its entirety.


Hmmm..Is this a trick? You aren't going to ask to borrow money are you? LOL

I'm so convinced that what I'm saying here makes sense that I can't understand why everyone can't agree with me. Really, I'm not saying that much, and what I am saying seems to me as commonsense. The intellectual hurdles to proving God are simply too great to behold, for both science and logic alone. We can't even agree on what God's attributes may be, let alone prove them. Nothing we may witness, even the greatest of miracles, can prove God, because we are only presuming God as cause of the experience; it's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to surmise God as cause of an external miracle such as that. One must personally experience God to know God with the highest degree of certainty conceivable; that experience is the miracle of revelation, the only miracle that can prove God. However, even though the person my know of God in that personal experience that experience must still be accepted in faith, for it cannot even be proven to their self. That's the closest one may get to "proof" of God. I'm sure of this.

That's pretty-much what I'm saying in this thread.

rajakrsna;1389402 wrote: Science can not prove the existence of God because God is a general term for He who is inconceivable, omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, full of knowledge, full of opulence, all- merciful and all-powerful. He is without cause. He is in fact the cause of all causes. His name is Govinda-the primeval Lord. He is Krishna. Here`s how science can prove God exists. By gathering facts, information, etc from Govinda, Krishna of India. That`s not difficult. The word God is a deception. Just like if you call me Doctor. You should call me Doctor Rajakrsna.


I can agree with most everything you have here, except the part where you say that we may be able to prove God by "gathering facts, information, etc, from Govinda, Krishna of India." For me, that claim has no more validity than the claims of a Christian snake handler. And that's not intended to be insulting, I'm simply being honest. If you think you can "prove" God with these alleged facts I would be most grateful, and I'm sure, the whole world would be grateful, too. You must be very confident, because you add that it is "not difficult." Prove God with those facts and I'll eat my computer monitor.

Infinite Stop;1389886 wrote: Hmmm..Is this a trick? You aren't going to ask to borrow money are you? LOL

I'm so convinced that what I'm saying here makes sense that I can't understand why everyone can't agree with me. Really, I'm not saying that much, and what I am saying seems to me as commonsense. The intellectual hurdles to proving God are simply too great to behold, for both science and logic alone. We can't even agree on what God's attributes may be, let alone prove them. Nothing we may witness, even the greatest of miracles, can prove God, because we are only presuming God as cause of the experience; it's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to surmise God as cause of an external miracle such as that. One must personally experience God to know God with the highest degree of certainty conceivable; that experience is the miracle of revelation, the only miracle that can prove God. However, even though the person my know of God in that personal experience that experience must still be accepted in faith, for it cannot even be proven to their self. That's the closest one may get to "proof" of God. I'm sure of this.

That's pretty-much what I'm saying in this thread.I suppose I may be wrong but I think Bryn meant "post" and not "thread".

As for your notion, it's still a notion and always will be a notion because what you're calling a revelation is not a revelation at all, it's a delusion.

If you want to make the statement that science can never prove god, you must first define "God", which you haven't. After that is done, you must define what "proof" is before the the discussion can continue.

You're playing word games by posing your question as one who acknowledges God does not exist and therefore cannot be proven, but we know that not to be the case, so, the question is being posed by a theist and that complicates the issue unless full disclosure is made in detail.

Ahso!;1389666 wrote: You appear to think science is out to prove (or disprove) God. That could not be further from the truth. Science, in the context of Cosmology is simply acknowledging what is observed and attempting to understand how it occurred through experimentation and calculation. God has nothing at all to do with it.

Also, if I understand correctly the Universe did not create itself: the Universe is the consequence of The Big Bang.

One last thing. What in the world do you mean by: "the material universe is not its own reason for existing."?

Frankly speaking, you holy rollers talk gibberish.


If you recall, I said that proving God is outside the purview of science. I don't remember exactly where I said it, but I said it.

But if atheists know this--that science cannot prove God--then why are they always asking for proof? If God is beyond science then God is beyond the kind of proof that atheists desire. There will never be a strictly logical, scientific proof for God. If so, then you must agree that revelation could be the only means of knowing God. There's simply nothing else. I guess if you want to know God, then the best you could do to procure such knowledge would be to pray to God and hope It responds with the gift of revelation. Unless you can think of a better way to bend God's ear.

Infinite Stop;1389886 wrote: Hmmm..Is this a trick? You aren't going to ask to borrow money are you? LOL

I'm so convinced that what I'm saying here makes sense that I can't understand why everyone can't agree with me. Really, I'm not saying that much, and what I am saying seems to me as commonsense. The intellectual hurdles to proving God are simply too great to behold, for both science and logic alone. We can't even agree on what God's attributes may be, let alone prove them. Nothing we may witness, even the greatest of miracles, can prove God, because we are only presuming God as cause of the experience; it's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to surmise God as cause of an external miracle such as that. One must personally experience God to know God with the highest degree of certainty conceivable; that experience is the miracle of revelation, the only miracle that can prove God. However, even though the person my know of God in that personal experience that experience must still be accepted in faith, for it cannot even be proven to their self. That's the closest one may get to "proof" of God. I'm sure of this.

That's pretty-much what I'm saying in this thread.


For thread read post but yes, once you remove the confusion of the use of English, we fairly much agree.

Infinite Stop;1389891 wrote: If you recall, I said that proving God is outside the purview of science. I don't remember exactly where I said it, but I said it.

But if atheists know this--that science cannot prove God--then why are they always asking for proof? If God is beyond science then God is beyond the kind of proof that atheists desire. There will never be a strictly logical, scientific proof for God. If so, then you must agree that revelation could be the only means of knowing God. There's simply nothing else. I guess if you want to know God, then the best you could do to procure such knowledge would be to pray to God and hope It responds with the gift of revelation. Unless you can think of a better way to bend God's ear. ;)That's not accurate. Not all nonbelievers ask for scientific proof, I for one have never asked for that, I've always maintained that there is no God as surely as there are no ghosts or santa claus or three little pigs or jedi. They're all stories, including yours.

Ahso!;1389888 wrote: I suppose I may be wrong but I think Bryn meant "post" and not "thread".

As for your notion, it's still a notion and always will be a notion because what you're calling a revelation is not a revelation at all, it's a delusion.

If you want to make the statement that science can never prove god, you must first define "God", which you haven't. After that is done, you must define what "proof" is before the the discussion can continue.

You're playing word games by posing your question as one who acknowledges God does not exist and therefore cannot be proven, but we know that not to be the case, so, the question is being posed by a theist and that complicates the issue unless full disclosure is made in detail.


You are saying here that any and all claimed revelations are "delusion." But that's a negative you could never hope to prove in history; it would only take one of the thousands of claims to prove you wrong.

My only claim for revelation is that it could be the only means of ever attaining knowledge of God. It need not even be the case that divine revelations have ever actually occurred. I only offer revelation as a rational theory, based on human experience. All knowledge comes via personal experience, ours or someone elses. Since most knowledge trafficked is of the verifiable kind, we usually have little compunction in accepting that knowledge as factual. The big difference with knowledge of God is, that a revelation is a miracle that can't be proven; it would be a unique experience, divinely caused. Such an experience would not be repeatable or "testable," and therefore could not be proven to another. That's why if you and I want "proof" of God it must come via a personal experience.

As far as what I consider to be "proof," I'd say generally that it is when a person has no doubts about the veracity, truthfulness, or "reality" of a proposed fact; in this case, the fact of God's existence. And that's consistent with an actual dictionary def of "proof," as shown here:

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration

One, two, and four are connotations that are best suited for my purposes. The evidence comes in the experience in the form of what I call a "concrete intuition." The revelation will compel such an intuition resulting in sure knowledge of God; and that sure knowledge will--must--transcend all doubts. I'm simply saying this is the way it must be, that's all. I'm not saying that every claimed revelation is true, only that a true revelation is a divinely caused intuitive response that knows--without doubt--God as cause of the experience. That's the best "proof" humans can hope for, I argue. If that makes you mad, then I'm sorry. Don't kill the messenger.

As far as being able to "test" the proof: The only one who could test the proof is the one who had the experience. Their new-found knowledge of God could be tested, but only as a matter of faith. Beyond that, I don't see how the revelation could be "tested."

Ahso!;1389893 wrote: That's not accurate. Not all nonbelievers ask for scientific proof, I for one have never asked for that, I've always maintained that there is no God as surely as there are no ghosts or santa claus or three little pigs or jedi. They're all stories, including yours.


Let me be blunt. If you are so utterly convinced that God does not exist, then why are you even bothering to argue? Why not just shake your head in amazement at our stupidity in here, and walk away from it all?

Pappy;1389807 wrote: Not quite sure what your agreeing with? The debate is "circular logic".

Christian: God exist.

Atheists: How do you know God exist?

Christian: Because the Bible says so.

Atheists: How do you know the Bible is true?

Christian: Because God says so.

An age old problem. The only way that anyone can prove a God is with the Bible which cannot be used to prove itself.


You are right, of course. And this just underscores my point. There's simply no way for us to surmount the intellectual hurdles with this God thing. Any logical argument or scientific proof of God must necessarily rely on the presumption of the very thing we are trying to prove; in this case--God. And miracles in general can do no better for proof of God, either. If millions of people prayed daily to Jesus for, let's say, 5 years for the moon to fly off into space so we could have proof of God and Jesus, we still haven't proven God. Truth is, it's nothing more than an argument from ignorance. We simply don't know, even though there's that temptation to conclude God and Jesus, it could have been simply a coincidence or perhaps some power generated from the combined energy of our psychees. Imagining a supreme being as cause in such a scenario is no more likely than either the coincidence or the psyche possibility. Why should one foolish and unproven proposition be any more likely than any other? And in the absence of proof they are all just as foolish.

Take away science and miracles, and the only thing left is revelation.

Infinite Stop;1389886 wrote: Hmmm..Is this a trick? You aren't going to ask to borrow money are you? LOL

I'm so convinced that what I'm saying here makes sense that I can't understand why everyone can't agree with me. Really, I'm not saying that much, and what I am saying seems to me as commonsense. The intellectual hurdles to proving God are simply too great to behold, for both science and logic alone. We can't even agree on what God's attributes may be, let alone prove them. Nothing we may witness, even the greatest of miracles, can prove God, because we are only presuming God as cause of the experience; it's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to surmise God as cause of an external miracle such as that. One must personally experience God to know God with the highest degree of certainty conceivable; that experience is the miracle of revelation, the only miracle that can prove God. However, even though the person my know of God in that personal experience that experience must still be accepted in faith, for it cannot even be proven to their self. That's the closest one may get to "proof" of God. I'm sure of this.

That's pretty-much what I'm saying in this thread.


I'm so convinced that what I'm saying here makes sense that I can't understand why everyone can't agree with me.


Are you serious? :yh_rotfl The rest is assumption and mostly argument from ignorance....

Pappy;1389972 wrote: Are you serious? :yh_rotfl The rest is assumption and mostly argument from ignorance....


On the contrary, revelation is the only experience that overcomes circular reasoning and the argument from ignorance. There could be no greater proof of God outside of personally experiencing God. This may not suit your desire for a scientific proof for God, but that's the way it is, I'm sure.

Infinite Stop;1389982 wrote: On the contrary, revelation is the only experience that overcomes circular reasoning and the argument from ignorance. There could be no greater proof of God outside of personally experiencing God. This may not suit your desire for a scientific proof for God, but that's the way it is, I'm sure.


God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs:

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

Pappy;1389989 wrote: God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs:

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs


God may be imaginary to you, but not to one who has personally experienced God.

The only action you--or anyone--could perform for the purpose of obtaining "proof" of God is to pray for that God to reveal Itself. It's true, there's always the chance that God could reveal Itself without your supplication for His own ends and purposes, for sure: God will do what God pleases. If God reveals Itself, then you have experienced a revelation. A divinely inspired revelation is the only way to know God. Such an experience could not be logically dissected and proven, so it will be your intuitive mind that connects you with the divine. You will know God as the cause of the experience, and the miracle is that, you will know that you know. That's the closest you will ever get to "proof" of God.

In the end, your knowledge of God will have been a gift from God. You will have not "discovered" God; God will have revealed itself to you.

So, come on and tell me IS, why you and not Lisa Steinberg? Why does God favor you above her? We're you more sincere than Lisa? Was Lisa created only to be tortured and murdered? Answer the tough questions.

Ahso!;1390160 wrote: So, come on and tell me IS, why you and not Lisa Steinberg? Why does God favor you above her? We're you more sincere than Lisa? Was Lisa created only to be tortured and murdered? Answer the tough questions.


It's the argument from evil again. If I could solve that I'd be TIME'S man of the year. It's one of the great mysteries of the universe, suffering and evil: Why do some live long and happy lives, while others short and miserable? Why are some filthy rich and others filthy in poverty? Some handsome and others pitiful to look at? Some smart (like you:)) and others dumb as a rock (like me;)) If you wanted to use evil and suffering against me, why not the holocaust? or some other great evil beyond one person.

I don't have the slightest idea why God should want to reveal Itself to me. But It did.

Infinite Stop;1390164 wrote: It's the argument from evil again. If I could solve that I'd be TIME'S man of the year. It's one of the great mysteries of the universe, suffering and evil: No mystery at all. Suffering is a part of life and evil is a conjured up value which has its roots in religion.

Infinite Stop;1390164 wrote: I don't have the slightest idea why God should want to reveal Itself to me. But It did.It must be your humility.

Infinite Stop;1390164 wrote: It's the argument from evil again. If I could solve that I'd be TIME'S man of the year. It's one of the great mysteries of the universe, suffering and evil: Why do some live long and happy lives, while others short and miserable? Why are some filthy rich and others filthy in poverty? Some handsome and others pitiful to look at? Some smart (like you:)) and others dumb as a rock (like me;)) If you wanted to use evil and suffering against me, why not the holocaust? or some other great evil beyond one person.

I don't have the slightest idea why God should want to reveal Itself to me. But It did.


Wheat everything you said can be explained economics, beauty, education, and general happiness, your god can not that is why you and others like yourself never have the slightest idea on anything and thank you for clearing it up that religiously fanatical nut jobs are "dumb as a rock" it helps explain alot