Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
actually everyone operates under a belief system.
Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg/800px-Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg.png

actually everyone operates under a belief system.
Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy.

W.B. Yeats:

IX. The Four Ages of Man

He with body waged a fight,
But body won; it walks upright.

Then he struggled with the heart;
Innocence and peace depart.

Then he struggled with the mind;
His proud heart he left behind.

Now his wars on God begin;
At stroke of midnight God shall win.


The human problem is, in brief, this:

Then he struggled with the heart;/ Innocence and peace depart. //Then he struggled with the mind; / His proud heart he left behind.

If one goes into the whole "epistemology and such business" of one's beliefs, one ends up confused, simultaneously disillusioned and feeling deeply in illusion more than ever.

One thing I often observe in theists is that they do not think of their convictions as a "belief system". This really bewilders me, and has lead to much strife between myself and them.
Why don't some theists think in terms of "my belief system"?

Does Pope Benedict have a belief system?
Did Mother Theresa have a belief system?
Martin Luther King?
Gandhi?

Bah, everyone's delusional!

actually everyone operates under a belief system.
Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy.Alternatively there are those who don't claim to hold any knowledge (as defined in the diagram) and operate from a basis of practicality rather than belief... "my understanding seems to work for me at present, but that is not to say it is the truth."
They therefore remain fluid and hold no belief, but nor do they claim to "know" (as defined) beyond what can be demonstrated by them in practice.

actually everyone operates under a belief system.Wrong! the critically minded use knowledge, and facts.

Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy. Of course they do, they have to discuss the facts in order to ascertain a proof, truth, or whatever you want to call it.

The reverse is true of any religion as there are no facts to discuss. (only pseudo BS) Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain a proof, truth, or anything for that matter.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8966/800pxclassicaldefinitio.jpg

I believe in myself. That said I do seek out knowledge by reading and asking questions about things I do not know or understand. If those things I read cannot give me enough INFORMATION using FACTS then I tend to see those types of things as just opinions and beliefs about whatever they are not the truth.

actually everyone operates under a belief system.
Perhaps the only persons who think otherwise are those who don't venture much into philosophy.


The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).

Philosophy is exploration of ideas. But we do not necessarily believe all philosophy. That's fine, it is interesting to explore.

But to have unproven BELIEFS is delusional. One needs to always maintain a healthy scepticism to be respected by sane people.

Nobody is explaining why they believe without proof.

And nobody is attacking the point of the OP's premise.

The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).

Philosophy is exploration of ideas. But we do not necessarily believe all philosophy. That's fine, it is interesting to explore.

But to have unproven BELIEFS is delusional. One needs to always maintain a healthy scepticism to be respected by sane people.
I don't think you understand.

Philosophy grants the status of proof to knowledge.

IOW if you have no necessary belief in philosophy you have no proof.

Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

why would you assume i don't have proof? :confused:

is it because it didn't happen in a lab? in some controlled environment? it wasn't examined under a microscope or studied by scientists and written up in some journal?

all that means is that the proof is just for me. it changed me. changed my life. it's a result that i'm happy with.

Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

First of all, what do you mean by ''proof''?
And what do we need proof of, and proof for?

As a theist, I don't go around believing in God.
As an atheist or agnostic you don't go around not believing in God.
The only way you know i'm a theist is because i've told you.
There are people who because of their affiliation to religion, may dovetail
their lives with rituals, rules, and regulations. They may even dress accordingly.
But these people can function fine in society. They own businesses, go to work, pay taxes, buy houses, go to the supermarket...
They do all the things non-believers do, so what are you actually talking about ''proof''? Proof of what exactly?


jan.

Wrong! the critically minded use knowledge, and facts.Of course they do, they have to discuss the facts in order to ascertain a proof, truth, or whatever you want to call it.

The reverse is true of any religion as there are no facts to discuss. (only pseudo BS) Thus it is impossible for them to ascertain a proof, truth, or anything for that matter.
http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8966/800pxclassicaldefinitio.jpg
You simply call upon your beliefs to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.

:shrug:

The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).


then its quite clear

You believe proof must fit the scientific context to be valid.

(which means that if you give a certain woman a gift on mother's day without clear scientific proof, you are delusional ... by your own standard)
:D

universaldistress,


The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).

You mean they have to be respected by atheists (here).
Don't mix up science and atheism.


Philosophy is exploration of ideas. But we do not necessarily believe all philosophy. That's fine, it is interesting to explore.

Philosophy is the only genre in gaining perspectives about ''God'' (intellectually). Religion is the mechanism on how to communicate with God.
The house is science, philosophy is the home. Both are necessary as you can't have one without the other. But both are different.


But to have unproven BELIEFS is delusional. One needs to always maintain a healthy scepticism to be respected by sane people.


Tell me something that YOU BELIEVE.

Who do you regard as sane people? :confused:

jan.

All this BS doesn't prove anything. Can someone address the OP please. Trying to say the need of proof is irrelevant is moving away from a scientific context (sciforums).

If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

Philosophy grants the status of proof to knowledge.Well that's a given, if what's being discussed has a solid basis.
IOW if you have no necessary belief in philosophy you have no proof.No it seems you don't understand, Whatever is discussed has to have a solid basis, before it can be ascertained as a proof or truth. With no solid basis it isn't even worth contemplating.

The question being ask is why without any prove do the religious believe.

Why you brought up philosophy is beyond me, as you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur.

I, if I was a theist, would take ths opportunity to try and justify my belief. At least offer up my individual proof for review.

Science is after all about review.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

i did. i have proof. it's for me. get your own if you want it, but some human being isn't going to hand it to you. it's not ours to give.

(which means that if you give a certain woman a gift on mother's day without clear scientific proof, you are delusional ... by your own standard)
:D

What total bullshit. I don't give my mother a gift on mothers day because I know beyond all doubt that she is my biological mother. I give her a gift because she has performed that role for as long as I can remember.

You simply call upon your beliefs to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.What! I call upon my knowledge and the knowledge I can access, to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.
Do you even know the difference between belief and knowledge.

Belief : confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Knowledge : acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.

With religious beliefs you can not possibly have any knowledge to confirm your beliefs, it is merely wishful thinking. But the question is why!

Well that's a given, if what's being discussed has a solid basis.
you are not making sense.
A discussion (of sorts ... even if its just a mad stampede to some sort of conclusion in the complete absence of coherent thinking) of philosophy has well and truly already begun before one begins a discussion on what has (or hasn't) a solid basis.


No it seems you don't understand, Whatever is discussed has to have a solid basis, before it can be ascertained as a proof or truth. With no solid basis it isn't even worth contemplating.
No you don't understand.

If you don't have a framework for "reality (aka philosophy) there is no question of proof or truth


The question being ask is why without any prove do the religious believe.
Probably because your beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof (like say a heavy bias in empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibit your comprehension


Why you brought up philosophy is beyond me, as you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur.
:o
Did you make a typo there or did you actually mean to say one can't use philosophy to ascertain a truth?

i did. i have proof. it's for me. get your own if you want it, but some human being isn't going to hand it to you. it's not ours to give.

Individualistic, solipsistic, claptrap delusion. Case in point.

You belief is not within the sphere of science, so why argue or seek to prove its relevance on a science forum?

What! I call upon my knowledge and the knowledge I can access, to say religion brings no proof to the discussion.
Do you even know the difference between belief and knowledge.

Belief : confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
Knowledge : acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.

With religious beliefs you can not possibly have any knowledge to confirm your beliefs, it is merely wishful thinking. But the question is why!
and there you have it son

the only way you can say that one can not possibly have any knowledge to back up religious claims is if you are deeply dyed by belief.

IOW you have a slanted view of what constitutes "rigorous proof" and simply let whatever stands outside your aperture (or probably more accurately, apathy) of perception fall by the way side.

What total bullshit. I don't give my mother a gift on mothers day because I know beyond all doubt that she is my biological mother. I give her a gift because she has performed that role for as long as I can remember.
tsk tsk
Such is the misfortune of people willing to attribute roles to others without a core of scientific evidence to back up their claims

If you don't have a framework for "reality (aka philosophy) there is no question of proof or truth


Physics is the non-delusionals' framework for reality. Philosophy is just the exploration of ideas, and the presentation of said ideas within debate/theory. For a philosophical idea to be accepted into the proven framework of reality it needs to be proved.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
(No one has the balls or brains to take this on? Present your proof, individualistic or otherwise).

I, if I was a theist, would take ths opportunity to try and justify my belief. At least offer up my individual proof for review.

Science is after all about review.
Up for review by who?
Janitors?

tsk tsk
Such is the misfortune of people willing to attribute roles to others without a core of scientific evidence to back up their claims

Rav doesn't need to offer proof. He could get a genetic test to silence you. He could post images of his childhood from birth. He could offer testimony of his Father and other loved ones to back up his claim. But the fact is he can offer this proof. You offer nothing.

However his mother is not the subject of this thread. Your unfounded belief is. PROVE IT.

Up for review by who?
Janitors?

Trolling and seeking to derail the thread. Answer the OP:

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

Physics is the non-delusionals' framework for reality.
the more you try to justify your perspective, the more it becomes apparent you are airing your beliefs


Philosophy is just the exploration of ideas, and the presentation of said ideas within debate/theory.
You are simply uninformed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics


I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
(No one has the balls or brains to take this on? Present your proof, individualistic or otherwise).
If you take "proof" as synonymous with the language of quarks, neutrinos and electrons, you haven't even got proof that the woman who claims to be your mother is making a claim that is not delusional.

IOW your prerequisites for proof are so absurdly small and narrow that you have already painted yourself in a corner of delusion.
:shrug:

Trolling and seeking to derail the thread. Answer the OP:

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
I take it you are a bit worried that specialized claims are reviewed by specialized persons, yes?

tsk tsk
Such is the misfortune of people willing to attribute roles to others without a core of scientific evidence to back up their claims

Stop screwing around lightgigantic. Would you not give your mother a gift on mothers day (if that was your tradition) even in the absence of scientific evidence that she was in fact your mother, simply because she had done all the things for you that a mother typically does for a child? The gift is supposed to be a recognition of her contribution to your development, not a prize for being who she claims to be.

Rav doesn't need to offer proof. He could get a genetic test to silence you.
Thats the point though isn't it.

he hasn't.

Yet he is satisfied to be deluded


He could post images of his childhood from birth.
Typical of the deluded to be satisfied with anecdotal evidence


He could offer testimony of his Father and other loved ones to back up his claim.
Hmmpphh.

Appeal to authority ... another key sign of the weakness of the deluded


But the fact is he can offer this proof. You offer nothing.
the fact is that he offers nothing in the language of quarks and electrons, so according to your standard of physics being the language of reality, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.


However his mother is not the subject of this thread. Your unfounded belief is. PROVE IT.
the point is that if we universally apply your (completely arbitrary) requirements for proof we are left with an idiotic world view

Stop screwing around lightgigantic. Would you not give your mother a gift on mothers day (if that was your tradition) even in the absence of scientific evidence that she was in fact your mother, simply because she had done all the things for you that a mother typically does for a child? The gift is supposed to be a recognition of her contribution to your development, not a prize for being who she claims to be.
If you are not worried about assigning roles to others in the complete absence of the language of physics it simply proves that you have a wider array of ontological tools than what Universal distress is advocating.

In fact I think persons who don't have such skills are prime candidates for the loony bin.
Would you agree?

If you are not worried about assigning roles to others in the complete absence of the language of physics it simply proves that you have a wider array of ontological tools than what Universal distress is advocating.

You said:


(which means that if you give a certain woman a gift on mother's day without clear scientific proof, you are delusional ... by your own standard)

This is all I am responding to.

I said:


Stop screwing around lightgigantic. Would you not give your mother a gift on mothers day (if that was your tradition) even in the absence of scientific evidence that she was in fact your mother, simply because she had done all the things for you that a mother typically does for a child? The gift is supposed to be a recognition of her contribution to your development, not a prize for being who she claims to be.

Are you not going to answer the question?

Individualistic, solipsistic, claptrap delusion. Case in point.

You belief is not within the sphere of science, so why argue or seek to prove its relevance on a science forum?

i'm not arguing or seeking to prove it's relevance on a forum. you asked a question and i answered it.

listen, there is no "sphere of science" ok? there's stuff that's happening, and there's a bunch of scientists who can't keep up with it all. that's it.

i don't need a fucking scientist to tell me what's happened to me, and i think it's kind of pathetic that you do. this isn't an experiment ok? this is my life. and there hasn't been a scientist following me around since the day i was born examining me and all i go through, but i've been there, and i know. and if you don't know, then too fucking bad. you're not looking in the right place. :shrug:

UD,


All this BS doesn't prove anything. Can someone address the OP please. Trying to say the need of proof is irrelevant is moving away from a scientific context (sciforums).

What exactly do you want proof of?


If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.

What do you want proof of?


I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

Proof of what?
God?
If I could give to myself and others, God, I wouldn't be theist.
So again, proof of what exactly?


I, if I was a theist, would take ths opportunity to try and justify my belief.
At least offer up my individual proof for review.

I don't need to justify my belief, neither do you, unless actions by me, which affect you in a
negative way, are based totally, on what I believe.
You really should ask people who affect you in this way, for justification. Not people who don't.



Science is after all about review.

What does science have to do with God?
How thousands of years ago people knew the earth was a sphere, and that it was part of solar system within a giant body called the universe.
Isn't that discovery far more interesting.
Who knows, you may be able to understand belief in God, a little better.
But of course your enquirey would have to be genuine, not just trying to catch people out, or back them up into a corner because you
are only interested in your rules of the game of acquiring knowledge.

So again I ask. What exactly do you want me to prove to you?
I can't show God to you, so let's rule that one out.
Simple question, please offer an answer.　

jan.

You said:



This is all I am responding to.

I said:



Are you not going to answer the question?
And I answered it by suggesting it all depends whether one has recourse to tools other than the language of physics in order to define "reality".
And I further suggested that persons who don't have such a wide array tend to be in loony bins or socially retarded.

I also asked which side of the fence do you sit on.

then its quite clear

You believe proof must fit the scientific context to be valid.

(which means that if you give a certain woman a gift on mother's day without clear scientific proof, you are delusional ... by your own standard)

But he doesn't give his mother a gift here at Sciforums, so his not having a DNA test and all that would prove she is his mother doesn't matter.

If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.

You have posted this in the religion forum ... :eek:

And I answered it by suggesting it all depends whether one has recourse to tools other than the language of physics in order to define "reality".
And I further suggested that persons who don't have such a wide array tend to be in loony bins or socially retarded.

I missed the part where you confirmed or denied that you give your mother a gift on mothers day (or would, if that was your tradition) based upon something other than whether or not you can verify (scientifically) that she is your actual biological mother.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

People generally believe in things without having proof of them.

See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence (http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/EpDep.pdf).

People generally believe in things without having proof of them.

See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence (http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/EpDep.pdf).


What's so interesting about this thread is that UD doesn't have a
clue about what he's asking.

He somehow or other thinks we just upped and believed right off the bat.
He doesn't understand theism.

jan.

Alternatively there are those who don't claim to hold any knowledge (as defined in the diagram) and operate from a basis of practicality rather than belief... "my understanding seems to work for me at present, but that is not to say it is the truth."
They therefore remain fluid and hold no belief, but nor do they claim to "know" (as defined) beyond what can be demonstrated by them in practice.

And who are these people? Zen monks living in monasteries?

While I think what you say above can be a good way to think about one's presumed knowledge, I think it is also too tentative for people in general to abide by it.
Without a sense of certainty, people tend to become anxious, and this can have many negative consequences.

He somehow or other thinks we just upped and believed right off the bat.

It does seem like that, to many people. Even to me.

We've talked about this before, namely, how frustrating it can be to understand how someone has come to believe in God, and how misleading the testimonies of theists can be in this regard.

I agree that UD doesn't yet have the attitude that would be conducive to a more satisfactory exchange.




I don't need to justify my belief, neither do you, unless actions by me, which affect you in a
negative way, are based totally, on what I believe.
You really should ask people who affect you in this way, for justification. Not people who don't.

This sounds like bad advice.

Just imagine someone actually telling a theist something like this:

"When you talk about God, I feel uncomfortable, even more, I feel threatened. If what you say is true, I have nowhere to hide. I am really scared of you and everyone else who talks about God. I don't know what to do. ... When you answer my questions about your beliefs and God, I feel even more scared and hopeless. There doesn't seem to be a way I could ever have the certainty about God that you have. I am afraid that I will forever be at the mercy of people who claim to know God. So far, they have done some nasty things to me as well. But I am not sure - perhaps they are allowed to do that to me, because they are theists."

My experience has been that when I told a theist something like this, usually, all they seemed to have heard was "You theists are idiots" and they accused me of criticizing them. Which just made matters worse for me.


I suspect that underneath many an atheist rant, there is a deep fear of theists, sometimes also due to being abused by theists physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.

Stop screwing around lightgigantic. Would you not give your mother a gift on mothers day (if that was your tradition) even in the absence of scientific evidence that she was in fact your mother, simply because she had done all the things for you that a mother typically does for a child? The gift is supposed to be a recognition of her contribution to your development, not a prize for being who she claims to be.

You'd still need scientific proof that giving a woman such a gift on such an occasion makes sense. :p

The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).

I think that the expectation that beliefs be justified by proofs is too strong. We rarely encounter proofs outside mathematics and formal logic.

In real life, beliefs are supported by varying amounts of evidence and by chains of implication with variable but rarely apodeictic soundness.

That means that beliefs typically have weights. Some beliefs are almost certainly true, others are more likely to be true than not, while other beliefs are simply speculations, sometimes little more than shots in the dark.


But to have unproven BELIEFS is delusional.

No it isn't. Few if any of our beliefs are justified by formal logical proofs. Nevertheless, everybody believes things. Even scientists.

I think that the word 'delusion' applies in cases where individuals continue to hold beliefs in the face of convincing (at least to everyone else) contradictory evidence and counter-argument. Delusion is the unshakeable belief in propositions whose likelihood-weights are so low as to be approaching zero.

the more you try to justify your perspective, the more it becomes apparent you are airing your beliefs


You are simply uninformed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics


If you take "proof" as synonymous with the language of quarks, neutrinos and electrons, you haven't even got proof that the woman who claims to be your mother is making a claim that is not delusional.

IOW your prerequisites for proof are so absurdly small and narrow that you have already painted yourself in a corner of delusion.
:shrug:


I take it you are a bit worried that specialized claims are reviewed by specialized persons, yes?


Thats the point though isn't it.

he hasn't.

Yet he is satisfied to be deluded

Typical of the deluded to be satisfied with anecdotal evidence


Hmmpphh.

Appeal to authority ... another key sign of the weakness of the deluded

the fact is that he offers nothing in the language of quarks and electrons, so according to your standard of physics being the language of reality, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.


the point is that if we universally apply your (completely arbitrary) requirements for proof we are left with an idiotic world view


i'm not arguing or seeking to prove it's relevance on a forum. you asked a question and i answered it.

listen, there is no "sphere of science" ok? there's stuff that's happening, and there's a bunch of scientists who can't keep up with it all. that's it.

i don't need a fucking scientist to tell me what's happened to me, and i think it's kind of pathetic that you do. this isn't an experiment ok? this is my life. and there hasn't been a scientist following me around since the day i was born examining me and all i go through, but i've been there, and i know. and if you don't know, then too fucking bad. you're not looking in the right place. :shrug:


UD,



What exactly do you want proof of?



What do you want proof of?



Proof of what?
God?
If I could give to myself and others, God, I wouldn't be theist.
So again, proof of what exactly?



I don't need to justify my belief, neither do you, unless actions by me, which affect you in a
negative way, are based totally, on what I believe.
You really should ask people who affect you in this way, for justification. Not people who don't.




What does science have to do with God?
How thousands of years ago people knew the earth was a sphere, and that it was part of solar system within a giant body called the universe.
Isn't that discovery far more interesting.
Who knows, you may be able to understand belief in God, a little better.
But of course your enquirey would have to be genuine, not just trying to catch people out, or back them up into a corner because you
are only interested in your rules of the game of acquiring knowledge.

So again I ask. What exactly do you want me to prove to you?
I can't show God to you, so let's rule that one out.
Simple question, please offer an answer.　

jan.


People generally believe in things without having proof of them.

See John Hardwig's Epistemic dependence (http://web.utk.edu/~jhardwig/EpDep.pdf).


What's so interesting about this thread is that UD doesn't have a
clue about what he's asking.

He somehow or other thinks we just upped and believed right off the bat.
He doesn't understand theism.

jan.


I think that the expectation that beliefs be justified by proofs is too strong. We rarely encounter proofs outside mathematics and formal logic.

In real life, beliefs are supported by varying amounts of evidence and by chains of implication with variable but rarely apodeictic soundness.

That means that beliefs typically have weights. Some beliefs are almost certainly true, others are more likely to be true than not, while other beliefs are simply speculations, sometimes little more than shots in the dark.



No it isn't. Few if any of our beliefs are justified by formal logical proofs. Nevertheless, everybody believes things. Even scientists.

I think that the word 'delusion' applies in cases where individuals continue to hold beliefs in the face of convincing (at least to everyone else) contradictory evidence and counter-argument. Delusion is the unshakeable belief in propositions whose likelihood-weights are so low as to be approaching zero.

So I take it the diversionary tactics mean that no one here can offer ANY proof to support their belief. LOL.

Looks like you guys failed to answer the question.

I think you are scared to answer the question.

I think that the word 'delusion' applies in cases where individuals continue to hold beliefs in the face of convincing (at least to everyone else) contradictory evidence and counter-argument. Delusion is the unshakeable belief in propositions whose likelihood-weights are so low as to be approaching zero.

I agree with all that. I would add however that the argument from inconsistent revelations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations) while not necessarily having as much bearing on the probability of the existence of God as some might like to think, does come to bear on the probability of a certain set of beliefs being correct the more specific they are. So while there may be some probability that God is in fact real, it could be argued that there is a lower probability of any one religion representing the complete truth about who he is and what he wants from us.

Of course if there is only one true religion then the probability of it being the correct religion is 1. But since (as is argued in the above article) we have no way of determining such*, we have to roll the dice, and it may very well be a 128 sided dice since (as many of us will be aware) there is even argument within the many denominations of Christianity (for example) about which flavour you must practice (and to what extent) in order to ensure your salvation.

*Aside from the various testimonies we can find by reading books or articles online, I have personally seen the same qualities of faith and certainty in devout followers of many different religions. No one religion seems to have a monopoly on the manifestation of what seems to be "divine inspiration" in it's followers, yet one would expect to see something noticeably different in followers of "the one true religion". Either it's hiding in some obscure location, or personal testimonies are useless.

The word 'belief' refers to a representational cognitive state in which a proposition (which may be true or false) is at least implicitly affirmed or denied.

There's nothing wrong with beliefs or with having beliefs. It would be totally impossible to live our lives without affirming some things to be the case. There's no implication that beliefs can't be suitably justified by evidence and logic. In real life, some beliefs are and some aren't.

Among philosophers, the most common definition of knowledge is justified true belief. That's what LG's excellent Venn diagram illustrates.

The largest space consists of all possible propositions (things that can be true or false). Some of these propositions are in fact true, others aren't. (The circle labeled 'truths'.) Individuals affirm that some propositions are true, and thus hold beliefs. (The circle labeled 'beliefs'.) Some of the propositions that the individual believes to be true really are, but some might not be. And obviously there are some additional true propositions that individuals don't affirm and may not even know about. So the 'belief' circle only partially overlaps the 'truth' circle. The overlap represents 'true beliefs'.

But some true beliefs might just be accidentally true. So there's an even smaller circle inside the 'true belief' space that represents true beliefs that possess sound logical or evidenciary justification. That's 'justified true belief' and it defines the little circle that's labeled 'knowledge'.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg/800px-Classical-Definition-of-Kno.svg.png

So I take it the diversionary tactics mean that no one here can offer ANY proof to support their belief. LOL.

Looks like you guys failed to answer the question.

I think you are scared to answer the question.

really? because i think you're too scared to get the proof yourself, and so you're passing the buck to scientists, or religious leaders, or me. but the truth is, that on judgement day, it's not going to be about anyone but you.

really? because i think you're too scared to get the proof yourself, and so you're passing the buck to scientists, or religious leaders, or me. but the truth is, that on judgement day, it's not going to be about anyone but you.

BS.

What judgement day?

BS.

What judgement day?

the one where you'll be saying, "but he said, but she said", and god will be looking at you like, "so what?"

the one where you'll be saying, "but he said, but she said", and god will be looking at you like, "so what?"

Lol.

Lol.

seriously though, if you were really scientifically minded, wouldn't you at least be looking in the right place by now? i think you're being safe, because you know you won't find it there. that won't help you.

seriously though, if you were really scientifically minded, wouldn't you at least be looking in the right place by now? i think you're being safe, because you know you won't find it there. that won't help you.

Care to elaborate in a sensical fashion?

you are not making sense.
A discussion (of sorts ... even if its just a mad stampede to some sort of conclusion in the complete absence of coherent thinking) of philosophy has well and truly already begun before one begins a discussion on what has (or hasn't) a solid basis. So lets get this right, if we start talking about the whogleflugle bird from somewhere in the cosmos.
How do they ascertain a solid basis in regard to that whogleflugle bird.
No sir your arse about face, no discussion unless its one we imagined, (IE, whogleflugle bird) can be discussed without it first having a solid basis.

No you don't understand.It's clear it is you that has no idea. my claims are based on demonstrable facts, whereas yours cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than imaginings, anybody can imagine anything they wish and claim it's true just as you do. But until they offer evidence, we must reject it, else we would be believing anything and everything just because someone imagined it.

If you don't have a framework for "reality (aka philosophy) there is no question of proof or truthExactly my point, you need a solid basis, from which to start.

Probably because your beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof (like say a heavy bias in empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibit your comprehension Or your lack of beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof, (like say a heavy bias against empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibits your comprehension.
There is a reason empiricism exists, else every single crazy idea would have to be accepted until proven wrong.

Did you make a typo there or did you actually mean to say one can't use philosophy to ascertain a truth?No typo as I never actually said that ( your reading comprehension must be faulty), what I said was "you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur. "

the only way you can say that one can not possibly have any knowledge to back up religious claims is if you are deeply dyed by belief.No, the reason I can make that statement, is because the people claiming religious experiences have not met their burden of proof, it is not rocket science. I can reject it outright until some evidence is presented.

IOW you have a slanted view of what constitutes "rigorous proof" and simply let whatever stands outside your aperture (or probably more accurately, apathy) of perception fall by the way side. No!!!!! you have a slanted view as there is no rigorous proof in your world.
I'm surprised you don't believe in every religion and imagined idea, by the way you talk.

So I take it the diversionary tactics mean that no one here can offer ANY proof to support their belief. LOL.

Looks like you guys failed to answer the question.

I think you are scared to answer the question.
Actually its more the case that you opted out to elaborate on the sore points of your contribution.

Bet you didn't even know that physics is compounded (pun intended) by philosophical constructs, huh?

So lets get this right, if we start talking about the whogleflugle bird from somewhere in the cosmos.
How do they ascertain a solid basis in regard to that whogleflugle bird.
No sir your arse about face, no discussion unless its one we imagined, (IE, whogleflugle bird) can be discussed without it first having a solid basis.
Even if you want to state that the whogleflugle bird has no solid basis you have already brought philosophical tools to the table.
Can you not see this?



It's clear it is you that has no idea. my claims are based on demonstrable facts, whereas yours cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than imaginings, anybody can imagine anything they wish and claim it's true just as you do. But until they offer evidence, we must reject it, else we would be believing anything and everything just because someone imagined it.
Demonstratable to who exactly?
You can try and demonstrate to me an electron till the cows come home (in fact I wouldn't doubt that you haven't even had an electron demonstrated to yourself) and I can also reply "yr fulla shit asshole"
:shrug:


Exactly my point, you need a solid basis, from which to start.
My exact point is that you already have beliefs in place to establish what constitutes a "solid basis" (I mean its not like you have ever seen an electron, or more specifically a streak in a foggy medium, is it?).

Nothing inherently wrong with that since most educated persons recognize that belief plays an integral role in the initial stages of epistemology and even pedagogy.


Or your lack of beliefs on what constitutes truth and proof, (like say a heavy bias against empiricism within reductionist disciplines) inhibits your comprehension.
I never said that empiricism lacks substance.

I simply said it was a crappy tool to monopolize all knowable claims (like identifying who one's biological mother or father is for example)


There is a reason empiricism exists, else every single crazy idea would have to be accepted until proven wrong.
And there is a reason why empiricism is not uniformly advocated to cover the wide spread of knowable claims even amongst zealous advocates like yourself (I mean its not like you have had a dna test on your parents, is it?)


No typo as I never actually said that ( your reading comprehension must be faulty), what I said was "you can't use philosophy to ascertain truths or proves for religion, it is a non sequitur. "

If you ever take the opportunity to haul your sorry ass to a learning institute that teaches philosophy I can guarantee that you will spend at least the first semester reading the works by persons who do ascertain religious truths through the language of philosophy.
:shrug:



No, the reason I can make that statement, is because the people claiming religious experiences have not met their burden of proof, it is not rocket science.
If its not rocket science.
The same tools that govern rocket science also place the claims of certain persons to be your parents squarely in the category of "deluded"


I can reject it outright until some evidence is presented.
Ironically you can apply the same limited mode of thinking to reject the claim of certain persons to be your parents.


No!!!!! you have a slanted view as there is no rigorous proof in your world.
I'm surprised you don't believe in every religion and imagined idea, by the way you talk.
The way you speak I would be surprised if you have a functional relationship with your parents.
:shrug:

Actually its more the case that you opted out to elaborate on the sore points of your contribution.

Bet you didn't even know that physics is compounded (pun intended) by philosophical constructs, huh?

Elaborate on what sore points? I do not recognise any sore points LOL:

I have already dealt with philosophy:

Physics is the non-delusionals' framework for reality. Philosophy is just the exploration of ideas, and the presentation of said ideas within debate/theory. For a philosophical idea to be accepted into the proven framework of reality it needs to be proved.

I repeat: If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
(No one has the balls or brains to take this on? Present your proof, individualistic or otherwise).

I haven't opted out of the OP's question, you have. It is in fact your sore point dumbass.

Why not try and answer it instead of questioning its validity. LOL.

Elaborate on what sore points? I do not recognise any sore points LOL:

I have already dealt with philosophy:


I haven't opted out of the OP's question, you have. It is in fact your sore point dumbass.

Why not try and answer it instead of questioning its validity. LOL.
If you can't recognize that physics has a philosophy, you are simply deluded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics

Care to elaborate in a sensical fashion?

yes, thank you for the invitation. :)

if you want to find god, you have to look inside yourself, so if you limit your search to a laboratory, or something outside yourself, you are dooming yourself. not to say that god doesn't operate inside laboratories every day, it's just that, it's not there to be manipulated, just experienced if that's what you want. so is that what you want?

If you can't recognize that physics has a philosophy, you are simply deluded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics

Your point is? You just play with terminology to gain ground LOL. Physics is not accepted until it is PROVEN. Until then it can be philosophy. A crossover does not question my stance. Indeed a philosophy WITHIN Physics itself (philosophy is a broad term) would only support my claim that proof is needed to prove fact. And that the rest is just ideas.

You say nothing to affirm YOUR (supposed) fact a belief doesn't need to be proven before it can be held within a sane context by anyone.

The OP is still unanswered:

"If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?"

The simple fact you are a theist proves you are delusional.

yes, thank you for the invitation. :)

if you want to find god, you have to look inside yourself, so if you limit your search to a laboratory, or something outside yourself, you are dooming yourself. not to say that god doesn't operate inside laboratories every day, it's just that, it's not there to be manipulated, just experienced if that's what you want. so is that what you want?

I do not wan't anything. It would be interesting to receive some proof to justify theist belief. So I may better understand my delusional counterparts.

So I look inside myself and find God? Sounds like delusional BS.

Answering for the believers, I'd say that it is a comfort to believe. As this pertains only to the person, as a coping strategy, it can't go beyond that, say, to requiring political decisions of governments based on it. Reality bites the gig, too, showing what really is, contradicting belief, in all areas.

I do not wan't anything. It would be interesting to receive some proof to justify theist belief. So I may better understand my delusional counterparts.

So I look inside myself and find God? Sounds like delusional BS.

ok then don't find it. but if you would, stop bitching at, and blaming, and labeling, and hating those of us who do. thanks. :)

and what i'm saying is this, if you don't want anything from god, then you shouldn't be surprised that you don't find anything from god. and that's your fault, not mine.

ok then don't find it. but if you would, stop bitching at, and blaming, and labeling, and hating those of us who do. thanks. :)

and what i'm saying is this, if you don't want anything from god, then you shouldn't be surprised that you don't find anything from god. and that's your fault, not mine.

Right. Lets get one thing straight :). I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.

My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.

Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.

Demonstratable to who exactly?
You can try and demonstrate to me an electron till the cows come home (in fact I wouldn't doubt that you haven't even had an electron demonstrated to yourself) and I can also reply "yr fulla shit asshole"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cEL6UoMqg
Now it is possible to see a movie of an electron. The movie shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom. This is the first time an electron has ever been filmed, and the results are presented in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters.

Previously it has been impossible to photograph electrons since their extremely high velocities have produced blurry pictures. In order to capture these rapid events, extremely short flashes of light are necessary, but such flashes were not previously available. With the use of a newly developed technology for generating short pulses from intense laser light, so-called attosecond pulses, scientists at the Lund University Faculty of Engineering in Sweden have managed to capture the electron motion for the first time.

�??It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe,�?� says Johan Mauritsson, an assistant professor in atomic physics at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. He is one of seven researchers behind the study, which was directed by him and Professor Anne L�??Huillier.

These scientists also hope to find out more about what happens with the rest of the atom when an inner electron leaves it, for instance how and when the other electrons fill in the gap that is created.

�??What we are doing is pure basic research. If there happen to be future applications, they will have to be seen as a bonus,�?� adds Johan Mauritsson.

The length of the film corresponds to a single oscillation of the light, but the speed has then been ratcheted down considerably so that we can watch it. The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and is therefore not a film in the usual sense.

Previously scientists have studied the movements of electrons using indirect methods, such as by metering their spectrum. With these methods it has only been possible to measure the result of an electron�??s movement, whereas now we have the opportunity to monitor the entire event.

It has been possible to create attosecond pulses for a couple of years now, but not until now has anyone managed to use them to film electron movements, since the attosecond pulses themselves are too weak to take clear pictures.

�??By taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, it�??s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light. We started with a so-called stroboscope. A stroboscope enables us to �??freeze�?? a periodic movement, like capturing a hummingbird flapping its wings. You then take several pictures when the wings are in the same position, such as at the top, and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion,�?� clarifies Johan Mauritsson.

More information:

http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/

Tags: Atom Electron Science NASA 2012
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/3007/Video__Electron_filmed_for_first_time_ever/

I am going to say your full of shit arsehole. Here endeth the lesson.

I haven't replied to the rest of your post as I feel, I'd be flogging a dead horse.
As your wrong about one thing it's definite your wrong about the rest, it seeds doubt in everything else you say, plus you keep coming back with the same inane drivel, it's boring.
If you willing to look you will find the evidence.

I haven't replied to the rest of your post as I feel, I'd be flogging a dead horse.


Apt analogy Audible. how do we bear these crackpots? They offer nothing.

Right. Lets get one thing straight :). I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.

My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.

Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.

why do you think that's such a leap? my thoughts are that it probably has nothing to do with your lack of proof or with science, and it probably has more to do with what it would mean for you personally. THAT is quite a leap. i can testify to that.

You see it as you wish. I see it as I wish.

The leap into BS is not one i will be taking in a hurry.

You see it as you wish. I see it as I wish.

The leap into BS is not one i will be taking in a hurry.

"i see it as i wish" = "i believe"

don't let your beliefs inhibit you. ;)

"i see it as i wish" = "i believe"

don't let your beliefs inhibit you. ;)

I have no unproven beliefs so they can't inhibit me per se. A wish is a desire. A belief needs to be proven.

I strive for the truth. Maybe one day WE ALL will find it.

Ultimately one has to judge one's own life. If you find peace in belief so be it. Just do not expect an easy ride here.

Ultimately one has to judge one's own life. If you find peace in belief so be it. Just do not expect an easy ride here.

the biggest challenge is to find peace within yourself. you won't find that in a lab.

just sayin'...

I have no unproven beliefs so they can't inhibit me per se. A wish is a desire. A belief needs to be proven.
belief need not be proven, knowledge does.
belief does need evidence, evidence is not proof..
and as far as no unproven beliefs..what if the authority who taught you such beliefs comes into question? (how/why do you believe what you believe?)

I strive for the truth. Maybe one day WE ALL will find it.
..lol..i read that as 'I survive for the truth'..
truth is what we accept as truth.
it is a very subjective thing.

Nobody is explaining why they believe without proof.

I can't address belief in 'God', since I don't believe in gods.

But pretty much everything that I do believe has never actually been demonstrated by logical or mathematical proof. That includes my belief in the principles of logic themselves.


And nobody is attacking the point of the OP's premise.

Which was what? That you believe that religious people suck? That's not very interesting.

What would have been more interesting is if you had produced a convincing or even a creative reason why you think whatever it is that you think. But so far, your comments about proof, belief and delusion seem to be overly aggressive and philosophically naive.

truth is what we accept as truth.
it is a very subjective thing.

mmmm, i dont know about that. The truth is the truth and either you know something or you dont (truth).

Though i agree we all delude ourselve to some degree and its perfectly fine. If i look in the mirror and want to believe i look like Johnny Depp or Marlon Barndo when he was in his prime, well it is not true. That example was an exaggeration to make a point.;)

Now if i go around telling people "Hey, I am Marlon Brando and you have to believe it" well that can\would be a problem?

Bah, everyone's delusional!

Me and you dear . The human mind lives in a delusional state . The nature of Humans. Fantasy is fun . It makes movies better too

I have no unproven beliefs

What proof can you provide for the principles of logic? Presumably you employed those principles to prove all of your proven beliefs, right?

I'm curious how you would even approach answering the question that I'm putting to you right now without bogging yourself down in circularity.

I do not wan't anything. It would be interesting to receive some proof to justify theist belief. So I may better understand my delusional counterparts.

So I look inside myself and find God? Sounds like delusional BS.

That is your problem . You don't want anything . Get some wants . Hells bells , don't you like having fun . The bigger the fantasy the more fun . Try rock climbing , or scuba diving . Imagine you are on a beach with a _____? It is your Fantasy. You fill in the blanks

actually everyone operates under a belief system.

Wrong! the critically minded use knowledge, and facts.

I'm curious; how do the people who use knowledge and facts do this without operating under a belief system? Do they use knowledge and facts without "believing" that's what they're doing, perhaps? How would that work?

I think it's easier to accept that critical minded people who use facts, are operating under the belief that facts exist, at least, and that they have knowledge of the facts, and furthermore they believe the facts are "relevant". I can't see how anyone could claim that critical thinking exists without invoking a belief system. . .

What proof can you provide for the principles of logic? Presumably you employed those principles to prove all of your proven beliefs, right?

I'm curious how you would even approach answering the question that I'm putting to you right now without bogging yourself down in circularity.


I'm curious; how do the people who use knowledge and facts do this without operating under a belief system? Do they use knowledge and facts without "believing" that's what they're doing, perhaps? How would that work?

I think it's easier to accept that critical minded people who use facts, are operating under the belief that facts exist, at least, and that they have knowledge of the facts, and furthermore they believe the facts are "relevant". I can't see how anyone could claim that critical thinking exists without invoking a belief system. . .

Seconded.

So I take it the diversionary tactics mean that no one here can offer ANY proof to support their belief. LOL.

Looks like you guys failed to answer the question.

I think you are scared to answer the question.

Why don't you read Hardwig's paper? He's not theist, and the paper was published in a prominent journal.

No proofs of God have been supplied, and now the disproofs of God are even piling up�

To go for and even elaborate many levels more upon a supposed invisible realm with no proof is really a bit much. To then state it as truth is not only delusion but dishonest.

really? because i think you're too scared to get the proof yourself, and so you're passing the buck to scientists, or religious leaders, or me. but the truth is, that on judgement day, it's not going to be about anyone but you.


Right. Lets get one thing straight :). I have seen through the eyes of god. I have had moments of cognitive enlightenment and am very close to finding some kind of will to believe, through my theories and thoughts. But I myself can't get over the lack of proof. So cannot take the leap.

My god experience was whilst heavily hallucinating on mexican mushrooms. I would treat any delusion/hallucination I might have as non-proof of gods existence (internal proof). The only proof that could alter the superior stance (which frustrates the hell out of theists cause they can't dent it) of atheists (who are willing to accept the possibility of god) like me is for there to be external proof/action documented within reality. Verified by a respected group of unbiased learned humans.

Until that happens god-believers are consigned to the loony bin.


Apt analogy Audible. how do we bear these crackpots? They offer nothing.


I agree with Lori, although I wouldn't exactly use her words.


It seems that militant atheists/antitheists are at the stage where they simultaneously want a first-hand personal experience, but at the same time want someone else to verify or they won't believe it.

In a sense, this is perfectly reasonable demand, a solid attempt to avoid solipsism and its insanity.

It is also a demand that occurs in people who have a desire for something that can only be fulfilled within a particular society, while they themselves are not part of that society.
This phenomenon is rampant in modern times when many people are not born into religious communities or otherwise have only restricted access to them.

I don't think this modern hindrance is impossible to overcome, although I think it can be very difficult, but it does require a conscious change of attitude, as otherwise, one will keep pushing away those people and those opportunities that could give one what one desires.

*Aside from the various testimonies we can find by reading books or articles online, I have personally seen the same qualities of faith and certainty in devout followers of many different religions. No one religion seems to have a monopoly on the manifestation of what seems to be "divine inspiration" in it's followers, yet one would expect to see something noticeably different in followers of "the one true religion". Either it's hiding in some obscure location, or personal testimonies are useless.

I don't think personal testimonies are useless, but they are accompanied by the simple fact that they are likely incomplete - incomplete in the sense of what the testimony-giver said, as well as incomplete in what the hearer heard.

This is why it is necessary to associate with someone for a long time, through various life situations, to get a bit of a better picture of what they are like.

Many people nowadays do not have the opportunity to do so, so they instead go by stereotypes, preconceived notions, prejudices - which are bound to give a skewed picture.

Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?
I do believe that there is enough evidence which one can logically draw a conclusion that God does exist. Or not-depending on how you see the evidence.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."

I for one, believe God exists. When you look at how remarkable our universe and world is, and the complexities of the human body right down to DNA I think it is more logical to conclude that the results are that of a creator as opposed to a roll of the dice-simply sheer dumb luck.

The point is that beliefs need to be supported by proof to be respected in a scientific context (here).I have proof that supports my personal belief. But then, I don't give my belief much status or significance, because I don't need to, because the proof is enough. Besides, having a belief and giving it significance is really just an ego trip.

What's the proof? Well, why should I tell you? Why are you even interested? Don't you already know the answer?

No proofs of God have been supplied, and now the disproofs of God are even piling up…
The disproofs are piling up huh? Where?
As I state above, I have proof. But I also have no real desire to explain it. Why should I? It's my individual experience. All mine, nothing to do with you or your beliefs.

Beliefs are a tricky thing, I try to follow the path of "not-thinking" sometimes, which is like believing that you don't have to believe anything, just act. How logical is a belief that denies belief in anything? How come it works (for me)?

All this BS doesn't prove anything. Can someone address the OP please. Trying to say the need of proof is irrelevant is moving away from a scientific context (sciforums).

If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.
There is saying among scientists, "You can't put God under a microscope." In other words, he can't be summed up in a scientific formula or expressed in a mathematical equation. All the created universe can be encompassed by our minds, but God is greater than all that (it makes sense that he's greater than the universe he created) and consequently he can't be encompassed by our minds. This is the difficulty in providing incontrovertible proof of God's existence and why his existence can be held only by faith. This doesn't mean that belief in God is unreasonable or that there's no evidence for his existence. It just means that there is no "incontrovertible" proof of his existence; otherwise there'd be no atheists or agnostics.

Billy Graham once said, "I know God exists because I was talking to him just this morning." In other words, for most of us perhaps, our faith is based on our personal experience of God. Faith is like love, you can't prove it you can only experience it.

I do believe that there is enough evidence which one can logically draw a conclusion that God does exist. Or not-depending on how you see the evidence.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God. On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."

This reminds me of something:

It really depends on whom one thinks one needs to justify oneself to.

Usually, it seems we are not aware of this, and simply think that we ourselves are the ones who require that justification.

But it is usually the "voices" in our minds who require it. Often enough, those are voices of people who didn't care about us, whose harsh standards we had to live up to, who even abused us.

Personally, I am not so sure I want "proof of God" - I am not even sure what that would be.
But there is the angry voice of a teacher in my head, demanding it of me. I still think that in order to appease her anger, I need to "prove God". Then there are the voices of my Christian "friends" who always found such a combination of scriptures that made me look condemned, like an idiot, worthless. And I don't want to feel that way, I don't want to believe that this is "who I really am", so I fight them, seeking "proof of God", among other things.
Then there are people with whom I could spend a lifetime, and the issue of "proof of God" would never come up.

It really depends whom one associates with, immediately, or in the mind.

I have proof that supports my personal belief. But then, I don't give my belief much status or significance, because I don't need to, because the proof is enough. Besides, having a belief and giving it significance is really just an ego trip.

What's the proof? Well, why should I tell you? Why are you even interested? Don't you already know the answer?
The disproofs are piling up huh? Where?
As I state above, I have proof. But I also have no real desire to explain it. Why should I? It's my individual experience. All mine, nothing to do with you or your beliefs.

I think that especially for modern people, one of the hardest thing to learn is privacy, personal boundaries.

Even though many people spend a lot of their time alone, they don't know how to be alone. Others are present - in the form of memories, television, books, internet, and such.

What fascinates me the most about believers is that even though they are in great numbers in a relatively small place

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/067/cache/shower-festival-ganges_6744_600x450.jpg

each of these persons probably has an incredibly better sense of privacy than I do, even while I am alone in a room in a big house on a big property.

All this BS doesn't prove anything. Can someone address the OP please. Trying to say the need of proof is irrelevant is moving away from a scientific context (sciforums).

If you want to believe without having to prove, go join a religious forum.
There is saying among scientists, "You can't put God under a microscope." In other words, he can't be summed up in a scientific formula or expressed in a mathematical equation. All the created universe can be encompassed by our minds, but God is greater than all that (it makes sense that he's greater than the universe he created) and consequently he can't be encompassed by our minds. This is the difficulty in providing incontrovertible proof of God's existence and why his existence can be held only by faith. This doesn't mean that belief in God is unreasonable or that there's no evidence for his existence. It just means that there is no "incontrovertible" proof of his existence; otherwise there'd be no atheists or agnostics.

Billy Graham once said, "I know God exists because I was talking to him just this morning." In other words, for most of us perhaps, our faith is based on our personal experience of God. Faith is like love, you can't prove it you can only experience it.

I can't address belief in 'God', since I don't believe in gods.

But pretty much everything that I do believe has never actually been demonstrated by logical or mathematical proof. That includes my belief in the principles of logic themselves.



Which was what? That you believe that religious people suck? That's not very interesting.

What would have been more interesting is if you had produced a convincing or even a creative reason why you think whatever it is that you think. But so far, your comments about proof, belief and delusion seem to be overly aggressive and philosophically naive.

Attack the poster, not the content. Typical ineffective point making.

The OP question is clear, and scientific.

Logic is an evolved system that has been proven time and time again with the results it produces. If that isn't definite proof that logic works I do not know what is.

Still no proof to support BLIND BELIEF? NO? Didn't think so.

The weakness of humans/propensity to enjoy the comfort/peace of belief is avoided through use of a PROVEN system: Logic.

There are other avenues to achieve this peace without god-belief.

That is your problem . You don't want anything .
Don't want to BELIEVE in a maybe.


Get some wants . Hells bells , don't you like having fun . The bigger the fantasy the more fun .
You should read some of my prose. It would knock your stance into touch.


Try rock climbing , or scuba diving .
Done it. Done it.


Imagine you are on a beach with a _____? It is your Fantasy. You fill in the blanks AAAHHH, thanks for that amazing imagery ;)

Single personal proof doesn't cut it in a scientific context.

Your point is?
If you think you can talk about reality or a solid basis of proof divorced from philosophy its quite clear you don't a clue what you are talking about.
:o

<snip>I still think that in order to appease her anger, I need to "prove God". Then there are the voices of my Christian "friends" who always found such a combination of scriptures that made me look condemned, like an idiot, worthless. And I don't want to feel that way, I don't want to believe that this is "who I really am", so I fight them, seeking "proof of God", among other things.<snip>
I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible. The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.


Theorists speculate that it is consciousness that collapses the wave function and thereby creates reality. In this view, a subatomic particle does not assume definite properties when it interacts with a measuring device, but only when the reading of the measuring device is registered in the mind of an observer (which may of course be long after the measurement has taken place). According to the most extreme, anthropocentric version of this theory, only self conscious beings such as ourselves can collapse wave functions. This means that the whole universe must have existed originally as "potentia" in some transcendental realm of quantum probabilities until selfconscious beings evolved and collapsed themselves and the rest of their branch of reality into the material world, and that objects remain in a state of actuality only so long as they are being observed by humans (Goswami, 1993).
Source: http://davidpratt.info/jse.htm

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of "potentia". If I'm correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But..........

Other theorists, however, believe that nonselfconscious entities, including cats and possibly even electrons, may be able to collapse their own wave functions (Herbert, 1993).

If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn't really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4cEL6UoMqg
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/3007/Video__Electron_filmed_for_first_time_ever/

I am going to say your full of shit arsehole. Here endeth the lesson.

I haven't replied to the rest of your post as I feel, I'd be flogging a dead horse.
As your wrong about one thing it's definite your wrong about the rest, it seeds doubt in everything else you say, plus you keep coming back with the same inane drivel, it's boring.
If you willing to look you will find the evidence.
kind of fitting that you cite the authority of your deluded authority.... yada yada .... Jeez, you haven't even seen an electron have you, yet here you go blindly believing.... yada yada ... yrfullashit ..... yada yada

see how easy that is?
:o

If you think you can talk about reality or a solid basis of proof divorced from philosophy its quite clear you don't a clue what you are talking about.
:o

Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific. One must present belief in god as a possibility to discourse with sane people. Dope.

Your semantics is all out of whack. Philosophers do not frame that god definitely exists. If they do they are going to be reminded that there is no proof for the stance.

Ideas are fine. Belief is reserved for that which is PROVEN.

We could say IMAGINE god exists as a philosophical exercise, but this doesn't change the stance a sane person is required to maintain underneath.

Y'all just got carried away by the BS.

Single personal proof doesn't cut it in a scientific context.
Is science scientific?

I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible. The following quote is taken from an article by David Pratt.


Source: http://davidpratt.info/jse.htm

My argument goes like this.

1. If there were no self conscious beings to collapse the wave function, then reality consisted only of "potentia". If I'm correct, logically speaking, this would mean that no evolution could have taken place to give rise to conscious beings. This is because mind is needed in order for any material reality to be actualized.

2. Therefore, there must be an eternal transcendent mind (in which these transcendental realms of quantum probabilities exist) that eternally collapses the wave function by necessity of its being; there by giving rise to material reality.

But..........


If they could, then this fact would probably ruin my argument. But since there is no good observable causal reasons or mechanisms that would suggest that non-conscious entities can collapse their own wave function, i see no good reason to think that they could; logically speaking.

I am certainly no expert in regards to Quantum Physics, and i will not pretend to be. My argument is only based upon one interpretation that hasn't really been proven yet. Not to mention that i might be misunderstanding something of vital importance. Perhaps a Catholic with greater knowledge then i will destroy my contentions; but its just a bit of fun.

It will be nice to see what people think. And perhaps somebody might provide their own inferential proves in regards to Quantum Physics. That will be interesting.

Ha ha. No scientist fully understands Quantum Physics. This field is still under review. There are certain aspects which are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Other areas are fringe science under the kosh of conjectural hypothesis. (This is really basic stuff you don't grasp I see).

But to then leap to belief in consciousness acting on these systems smacks of desperation; indeed inability to wait on definite proofs instead of focusing on one possible conclusion reached with insufficient understanding of the system in question.

Just proves how UNscientific belief is.

Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific. One must present belief in god as a possibility to discourse with sane people. Dope.

Your semantics is all out of whack. Philosophers do not frame that god definitely exists. If they do they are going to be reminded that there is no proof for the stance.

Ideas are fine. Belief is reserved for that which is PROVEN.

We could say IMAGINE god exists as a philosophical exercise, but this doesn't change the stance a sane person is required to maintain underneath.

Y'all just got carried away by the BS.
You know, this definition of science as the study of the natural world is a new definition, it's a common use that's sprung up in the last century. Dictionaries don't actually tell us what words mean, they tell us what people mean by the words when they use them. So what definitions appear first, (most common use) changes over time as cultures evolve.

This is from an online site:


New Scientist Science Mag

http://www.newscientist.com/

sci�ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled[sahy-uhns] Show IPA
�noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Philosophy and Theology are also, properly, a science. Note "facts or truths" or "principles" in the bolded part. Those who study the natural world have, over time, distanced themselves from religion is order to be able to objectively pursue knowledge without interference from churches. Galileo is probably the classic example.

Those who pursue knowledge and truth, aren't themselves necessarily objective. (see: Dawkins or any Creationist)

Is science scientific?

Enlighten me.

You know, this definition of science as the study of the natural world is a new definition, it's a common use that's sprung up in the last century. Dictionaries don't actually tell us what words mean, they tell us what people mean by the words when they use them. So what definitions appear first, (most common use) changes over time as cultures evolve.

This is from an online site:


Philosophy and Theology are also, properly, a science. Note "facts or truths" or "principles" in the bolded part. Those who study the natural world have, over time, distanced themselves from religion is order to be able to objectively pursue knowledge without interference from churches. Galileo is probably the classic example.

Those who pursue knowledge and truth, aren't themselves necessarily objective. (see: Dawkins or any Creationist)

I understand the etymology of the word Science.

Dawkins is a blinded crackpot that assumes using insufficient evidence just as a god believer does. He has risen to prominence on the backs of extreme atheism. I do not share his stance.

Ha ha. No scientist fully understands Quantum Physics. This field is still under review. There are certain aspects which are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. Other areas are fringe science under the kosh of conjectural hypothesis. (This is really basic stuff you don't grasp I see).

But to then leap to belief in consciousness acting on these systems smacks of desperation; indeed inability to wait on definite proofs instead of focusing on one possible conclusion reached with insufficient understanding of the system in question.

Just proves how UNscientific belief is.
Everything is not explainable by science.

I understand the etymology of the word Science.

Dawkins is a blinded crackpot that assumes using insufficient evidence just as a god believer does. He has risen to prominence on the backs of extreme atheism. I do not share his stance.
Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term "science" was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.

Science is a branching of natural philosophy. The introduction of the scientific method during the 17th century started the branching. The term "science" was used to make it more distinguishable, which occurred during the 18th century. In effect, science is a subset of philosophy.

You could look at it that way. Doesn't effect my stance in the slightest.

I like to think Religion is a science (broad use of the word), a dysfunctional science that comes to conclusions without proof, and chooses to ignore proof when it wishes.

Logic is an evolved system that has been proven time and time again with the results it produces. Logic is a useless system when it comes to the subject of God, and that isn't the only thing it's useless for. It has been demonstrated time and time again, including here at this forum, that logic cannot produce results that prove or disprove anything about the subject of God.

But then, you have to believe that there are things in the world which defy logic, and that logic is only useful in a restricted setting. For instance, logic is axiomatic and axioms are a priori "facts" which are assumed to be complete. But they're only complete within the axiomatic logic. Logic can only be logical, so its usefulness is limited.

Logic is not what you appear to believe it is.

Logic is a useless system when it comes to the subject of God, and that isn't the only thing it's useless for. It has been demonstrated time and time again, including here at this forum, that logic cannot produce results that prove or disprove anything about the subject of God.

Dumb. Logic is not at fault. Your believing in unproven BS is. Go figure.


But then, you have to believe that there are things in the world which defy logic, and that logic is only useful in a restricted setting. For instance, logic is axiomatic and axioms are a priori "facts" which are assumed to be complete. But they're only complete within the axiomatic logic. Logic can only be logical, so its usefulness is limited.

Logic is not what you appear to believe it is.

Clutching at theoretical straws I think.

You still offer no PROOF LOL.

When will you concede that my stance is unbreakdownable.

The OP asks a simple question. You CANNOT answer it. The End.

The OP asks a simple question. You CANNOT answer it. The End.

you just don't like the answer. it doesn't fit in your box. :shrug:

Logic is a PROVEN system of review that is used with evidence to PROVE things.

This context holds.

you just don't like the answer. it doesn't fit in your box. :shrug:

I don't like the lack of proof within the answer.

For a question to truly be answered the answerer must address its context. All you lot do is whine and moan about how you can't answer it.

I don't like the lack of proof within the answer.

there IS NO proof in the answer! the proof comes from god itself, so if you're asking anyone else for proof, YOU'RE LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE.

You still offer no PROOF LOL.Laugh all you want.
What compels you to believe that I "need" to offer a proof? What does that even mean?

If it means: use a logical argument to prove that God exists, that is impossible. It's been impossible for thousands of years. That you insist it is possible only demonstrates that you don't understand what logic is, although it seems you like to think you do.

The OP asks a question which cannot be answered. Except, you can answer it for yourself, and you don't need logic to do it, all you need (really!) is the ability to concentrate, forget about logic, forget even about thinking ... it's like that.

Then, if you do experience something--it could take a bit of effort and practice--you can revisit your contention that personal proof "is not scientific". If you find, for example, that this practice makes you feel relaxed and "at peace", you can analyse this feeling as an unscientific result which has no bearing on your intellectual grasp of reality . . .

Discussing philosophy is fine. Using philosophy to support a belief in god stance is unscientific.
hence the gentle reminder that there are a host of knowable claims (such as identifying one's parents for example) that similarly use philosophy in an "unscientific" manner

I don't think personal testimonies are useless

I meant they are useless for the purposes of reaching any kind of certainty about which religion is the right one. Sure, the more time you spend with a person of faith the more likely you may be to become convinced that there's something to it, but there's something to a lot of things and we don't live long enough to spend the requisite amount of time with representatives of all the worlds many religions in order to determine which something there is more to.

I don't like the lack of proof within the answer.

For a question to truly be answered the answerer must address its context. All you lot do is whine and moan about how you can't answer it.

you want physical proof of god and you're asking ME for it. you want to talk about illogical? :confused:

OP still stands fudgers.

OP still stands fudgers.

your op is wrong. your assumption is wrong, that just because you don't have proof, no one has proof. i have proof, and you're wrong. that's it; case closed.

your op is wrong. your assumption is wrong, that just because you don't have proof, no one has proof. i have proof, and you're wrong. that's it; case closed.

Individualistic, solipsistic BS. I have countered this already.

Individualistic, solipsistic BS. I have countered this already.

my mind is not all that exists. god exists. you exist. that's not bs. you're wrong.

my mind is not all that exists. god exists. you exist. that's not bs. you're wrong.

Prove it. Prove something. Prove ANYTHING.

I have already stated that I respect your right to believe. Just do not tell me I am wrong. You can't substantiate this claim, and you can't substantiate your belief in god.

Prove it. Prove something. Prove ANYTHING.

God is Love. Love exists. Therefore, God exists.

Prove it. Prove something. Prove ANYTHING.

I have already stated that I respect your right to believe. Just do not tell me I am wrong. You can't substantiate this claim, and you can't substantiate your belief in god.

the evidence is me. it's my life. just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't there. it's just a matter of perception based on experience, and neither our experience nor our perceptions will ever be the same.

you confine your perception according to what you're willing to believe. that's obvious. not that our perceptions aren't confined enough, just based on our physical makeup and conditioning. how do you figure that confining your perception even further is a good or logical idea?

science doesn't have perfect knowledge. why limit yourself?

the evidence is me. it's my life. just because you don't recognize it, doesn't mean it isn't there. it's just a matter of perception based on experience, and neither our experience nor our perceptions will ever be the same.

you confine your perception according to what you're willing to believe. that's obvious. not that our perceptions aren't confined enough, just based on our physical makeup and conditioning. how do you figure that confining your perception even further is a good or logical idea?

science doesn't have perfect knowledge. why limit yourself?

Science doesn't curb my imagination. It curbs my belief. As it should be.

OP still stands fudgers.
stands to render anyone's claims to parenthood outside of dna testing delusional too, I might add ..

Science doesn't curb my imagination. It curbs my belief. As it should be.

as it should be is an arbitrary assertion and i said "perception". what you are willing to believe curbs your perception. if you are only willing to believe what is confirmed by a source of imperfect knowledge (which is the very basis of science) then you are intentionally missing out on what is not yet, and may never be, confirmed by this imperfect source. imo, you're screwing yourself.

stands to render anyone's claims to parenthood outside of dna testing delusional too, I might add ..

Can one prove whether one's parent is ones biological parent? Yes.

Can you prove that god exists?

as it should be is an arbitrary assertion and i said "perception". what you are willing to believe curbs your perception. if you are only willing to believe what is confirmed by a source of imperfect knowledge (which is the very basis of science) then you are intentionally missing out on what is not yet, and may never be, confirmed by this imperfect source. imo, you're screwing yourself.

My perception can be altered during conjecture. An altered POV for the reasons of imaginative exploration. LOL.

Can one prove whether one's parent is ones biological parent? Yes.



not without dna testing you can't. so if dna testing were unavailable, does that mean you wouldn't believe in parents?

and the definition of a parent doesn't have to be biologically based either. it's more about a role and a relationship than dna really.

My perception can be altered during conjecture. An altered POV for the reasons of imaginative exploration. LOL.

well, why bother when the scientists can't keep up with you?

Science doesn't curb my imagination. It curbs my belief. As it should be.
prove it

Can one prove whether one's parent is ones biological parent? Yes.
Do you? No

Therefore you are assigning persons roles in a state of delusion woo woo


Can you prove that god exists?
Can you prove who your biological parents are?
No

In stead you simply make a claim of belief

Is science scientific?
Enlighten me.
I was asking you. Can you answer it scientifically?

Can you prove that god exists?
Creation demands a Creator.

The gig truly IS up. LOL.

Do you? No

Therefore you are assigning persons roles in a state of delusion woo woo


Can you prove who your biological parents are?
No

In stead you simply make a claim of belief

How does this prove god's existence?

Did I claim to you that my parents are definitely my parents? You are right. Without proof I can't be sure. Trying to go emotional with your BS is pretty low.

The gig truly IS up. LOL.
Two videos for you my friend...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=related

universaldistress,

do you know that how and why are two different questions? how is "by what manner or way, or by what means", and why is "what is the cause, reason, or purpose". science answers "how" but it doesn't answer "why", and it never will. it's not supposed to. people use science in the same way they use anything, for bad or for good depending upon the intentions of those using it. it does not however, determine what is bad or good or why. it doesn't assign meaning to anything, so theoretically at least, you're dooming yourself to a meaningless existence, regardless of what you know. though i find it hard to believe you really do that.

Two videos for you my friend...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppIgFEFUpjw&feature=related

Conjectural ideas on infinity are not contigent on God existing.

Thanks for the comedic link. I haven't laughed so much for a long time.

The first video is just biased POV. Using a subjective point of view to frame infinity is BS. Infinity is infinite. Do you really believe that I haven't delved much deeper than this ignoramus theist? LOL. Sciwriter has got to see this.


The second link doesn't work so can't check it out.

universaldistress,

do you know that how and why are two different questions? how is "by what manner or way, or by what means", and why is "what is the cause, reason, or purpose". science answers "how" but it doesn't answer "why", and it never will. it's not supposed to. people use science in the same way they use anything, for bad or for good depending upon the intentions of those using it. it does not however, determine what is bad or good or why. it doesn't assign meaning to anything, so theoretically at least, you're dooming yourself to a meaningless existence, regardless of what you know. though i find it hard to believe you really do that.

The OP asks you WHY you believe without proof. This is definitely a WHY that can be answered.

universaldistress,

I think we are all built to search for and find truth. Truth exists, even if no one believes it. For example, a thousand years go, did anyone know about black holes in space? No. Because they didn't know, they didn't believe. Because they didn't believe, does that mean they didn't exist? No.

The study of how we "know" something is called epistemology. There are three basic ways in which we humans can "know" something:

1. Direct experience (Examples: touch it, feel it, see it, etc.).

2. Through logic. (Example: Lassie is a dog. All dogs are mortal. Therefore, Lassie is mortal.)

3. Through faith. (Example: My wife loves me. Can I prove that scientifically? No. But I KNOW she loves me, beyond a doubt.)

Science is very limited. It is limited by our ability to grasp it. VERY limiting. Man is not that smart, except, perhaps, when compared to other earthly creatures. Don't be too impressed by us :)

universaldistress,

I think we are all built to search for and find truth. Truth exists, even if no one believes it. For example, a thousand years go, did anyone know about black holes in space? No. Because they didn't know, they didn't believe. Because they didn't believe, does that mean they didn't exist? No.


Exactly. They didn't believe. So why do people believe in god then? Why not just wait for the existence of god to be discovered. that makes sense.

When proven the sane man believes.
Before proven the insane man believes.

Your statement doesn't aid your cause at all.

I do not say god doesn't exist. It is possible god could exist. That isn't the point though. Belief in a maybe is delusional, that is the point.

The study of how we "know" something is called epistemology. There are three basic ways in which we humans can "know" something:
1. Direct experience (Examples: touch it, feel it, see it, etc.).
2. Through logic. (Example: Lassie is a dog. All dogs are mortal. Therefore, Lassie is mortal.)
3. Through faith. (Example: My wife loves me. Can I prove that scientifically? No. But I KNOW she loves me, beyond a doubt.)
Faith does not provide knowledge.
In your example you do not know, you believe.

Exactly. They didn't believe. So why do people believe in god then? Why not just wait for the existence of god to be discovered. that makes sense.

When proven the sane man believes.
Before proven the insane man believes.

Your statement doesn't aid your cause at all.

I do not say god doesn't exist. It is possible god could exist. That isn't the point though. Belief in a maybe is delusional, that is the point.
Then you really do not have anything to lose. You cannot desire what you do not know.

But..............what if.................. :wave:

But..............what if.................. :wave:

'What if' is great. BELIEF in god is BS.

Faith does not provide knowledge.
In your example you do not know, you believe.
"The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." Blaise Pascal

"The heart has reasons that reason cannot know." Blaise Pascal
So what?
You're still operating on belief rather than knowledge.
BTW it sounds much better in the original French:
Le c�ur a ses raisons que la raison sais point.

Exactly. They didn't believe. So why do people believe in god then? Why not just wait for the existence of god to be discovered. that makes sense.

When proven the sane man believes.
Before proven the insane man believes.

Your statement doesn't aid your cause at all.

I do not say god doesn't exist. It is possible god could exist. That isn't the point though. Belief in a maybe is delusional, that is the point.

It is known as belief, and i am not arguing that it should not be, but i think it is more about hope. Some people are even put in positions that their belief, whatever it is, helps them. I dont consider myself to be a Theist but i understand the concept that goes along with it.

Coming up with questions like "who created God" meaning did God have a creator because where was the beginning? etc. etc. is easy to do though.

That said, we all know the negatives about religion but hopefully it would not be as severe as your average psycho cult.

Even just forcing your beliefs on others because most people who find something really good keep it to themselves. Its like, your walking down the street and find $100 most people, if not the overwhelming majority, wouldnt even tell the person next to them let alone give 99 people $1.00 Just as an example, not meant to be examined literally.

Attack the poster, not the content. Typical ineffective point making.

The OP question is clear, and scientific.

There are two kinds of ad hominems / ad personams:

1. vicious attacks on the person,

2. addressing the person because their own qualifications or disqualifications are relevant to the topic that is being discussed.


It is the second kind of ad hominems / ad personams that are being directed here at you.

OP still stands fudgers.

Relax.

Not addressing this song at you, just watch and listen - here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnHoqHscTKE).

I meant they are useless for the purposes of reaching any kind of certainty about which religion is the right one. Sure, the more time you spend with a person of faith the more likely you may be to become convinced that there's something to it, but there's something to a lot of things and we don't live long enough to spend the requisite amount of time with representatives of all the worlds many religions in order to determine which something there is more to.

It would all depend on whom in particular one spends time with, wouldn't it?

Surely walking along with someone like Jesus or the Buddha must make for a significantly different experience than walking along with Richard Dawkins or Fred Phelps.

Not addressing this song at you, just watch and listen - here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnHoqHscTKE).

:worship:

You just stepped up in my estimation.
Mr. Cave is awesome.

There are two kinds of ad hominems / ad personams:

1. vicious attacks on the person,

2. addressing the person because their own qualifications or disqualifications are relevant to the topic that is being discussed.


It is the second kind of ad hominems / ad personams that are being directed here at you.

I lack no qualifications. Is belief in god a required qualification? That is the main difference between the 2 sides, except you of course Siggy.

Relax.

Not addressing this song at you, just watch and listen - here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnHoqHscTKE).

certainly will do.

Will report back my findings forthwith.

It is known as belief, and i am not arguing that it should not be, but i think it is more about hope. Some people are even put in positions that their belief, whatever it is, helps them. I dont consider myself to be a Theist but i understand the concept that goes along with it.

Hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWUfFwoe8ko) can be a dangerous thing. Yet when things change, and they invariably do, without hope, life is unbearable.

Well Signal. May I answer your link with another?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWum0R5KUI

Well Signal. May I answer your link with another?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWum0R5KUI

Free will is something to discover, and nobody else can do it for one.

One's own free will shouldn't be pushed onto someone else. If your freewill involves removing another's then back off.

I'm so sorry if I quoted the Bible. Please don't get mad at me. Ok, I will give a a proof of God without using the Bible.

I wasn't addressing that post at you, and I noted as much.


And please, don't apologize for being apologetic and don't try to come up with alternatives to support what you are actually wanting to support with the Bible.
It undermines your authority and authenticity as a religious person.

And of course employing such alternatives is dishonest to the person you are talking to.

One's own free will shouldn't be pushed onto someone else. If your freewill involves removing another's then back off.

If that would be possible, then it wouldn't be free will.

Will is one thing. The mind is something else. Even if the two may appear entwined.

I lack no qualifications. Is belief in god a required qualification? That is the main difference between the 2 sides, except you of course Siggy.

No, belief in God is not a qualification for this discussion.
But what is a qualification is an understanding that God is also "something personal" and that therefore insisting on merely externalist proofs is a disqualification.

Believing without proof is evident, and so it must be a part of the human condition for some, whether for comfort, a continuation of influences past, or of evolutionary origin, such as a false positive causing no harm, like the supposed 'bear' turns out not to be there, but is always good to suspect, for if it is one could be a goner.

It's still a double error in thinking to still strongly go for what is invisible while also totally rejecting what really is. The only possible error left to make is to then preach it as truth.

Attack the poster, not the content. Typical ineffective point making.

Watching somebody trying to pick fights on a discussion board is a lot more interesting if the provocateur is able to produce some original ideas and if he or she argues for them with skill. Otherwise, the whole thing is just a display of attitude.


The OP question is clear, and scientific.

Let's look at the original post again.


Belief system? Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?

If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

Working through those 23 words --

"Belief system?" Two words and a question mark. I'm assuming that you are announcing that the idea of a 'belief system' is something that you are questioning.

"Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?" That sentence is grammatically ambiguous, depending on the scope of the concluding question mark.

I'm guessing that you intend the first clause "Everyone operates under a proof system" to be a flat factual statement rather than part of a question.

"except the delusional?" That concluding clause seems to have the implication that those who don't operate under what you call a "proof system" are probably delusional.

Several of us responded to these two sentences by pointing out:

1. There's nothing wrong with beliefs. Beliefs are just cognitive states in which somebody at least implicitly affirms the truth of a proposition. It's impossible to live one's life without beliefs. There's no suggestion that beliefs must necessarily lack suitable evidence and justification. Some beliefs are extremely well-founded, while other beliefs lack any real justification at all.

I realize that there's a popular usage among laymen in which 'believe' means something like 'doesn't know what he's talking about' and where it's contrasted antithetically with the word 'know'. But in philosophical and academic usage generally, knowledge is understood to be a subset of belief. Knowledge is typically defined as 'justified true belief'.

That's why the idea of a 'belief system' is valuable and is widely used among scholars. A large part of what motivates people's behavior is precisely their system of beliefs, which may be true or false and may or may not have credible justifications. If we want to understand why people do the things that they do and say the things that they say, we have little choice but to inquire into their system of beliefs. That's just as true for scientists as it is for priests and occultists.

2. The expectation that people actually have, or that they should ideally have, a "proof system" instead of a "belief system", is simply too strong. In real life, few if any beliefs are held on the basis of logical or mathematical proofs. That's just as true for logicians, mathematicians and scientists in their non-professional lives as it is for everyone else. Most lay-people couldn't even understand a formal proof.

The suggestion that anyone who doesn't base their ideas on proofs is "delusional" is, well, delusional. That dismissive judgement would apply to the entire human race and deprive the word 'delusional' of its existing meaning and use.

Again, I suspect that the difficulty here is the use of an imprecise layman's understanding of the word 'proof' in which it kind of vaguely refers in the direction of any sort of evidence or justification, and where it's being contrasted with something like 'bullshit'.


If you are a theist, please explain why you believe without proof?

I'll let the theists respond to that one.

No, belief in God is not a qualification for this discussion.
But what is a qualification is an understanding that God is also "something personal" and that therefore insisting on merely externalist proofs is a disqualification.

Personal beliefs have to be collectively tested and affirmed by the scientific community before it can be accepted as fact. That is science's role, proving shit.

It is fine to have a belief. It is not fine to expect someone who doesn't believe to also accept it as fact. That is the issue here.

I don't wish for people to stop believing. Just stop talking crap I say.

Watching somebody trying to pick fights on a discussion board is a lot more interesting if the provocateur is able to produce some original ideas and if he or she argues for them with skill. Otherwise, the whole thing is just a display of attitude.
No one has questioned my stance without relying on unproven BS. Dumbass. I am not looking for a fight. i am looking for just one believer who can justify his/her stance. Truth is no one can.




Let's look at the original post again.

Working through those 23 words --

"Belief system?" Two words and a question mark. I'm assuming that you are announcing that the idea of a 'belief system' is something that you are questioning.

"Everyone operates under a proof system, except the delusional?" That sentence is grammatically ambiguous, depending on the scope of the concluding question mark.

I'm guessing that you intend the first clause "Everyone operates under a proof system" to be a flat factual statement rather than part of a question.

"except the delusional?" That concluding clause seems to have the implication that those who don't operate under what you call a "proof system" are probably delusional.

Several of us responded to this second sentence by pointing out:

1. There's nothing wrong with beliefs. Beliefs are just cognitive states in which somebody at least implicitly affirms the truth of a proposition. It's impossible to live one's life without beliefs. There's no suggestion that beliefs must necessarily lack suitable evidence and justification. Some beliefs are extremely well-founded, while other beliefs lack any real justification at all.

I realize that there's a popular usage among laymen in which 'believe' means something like 'doesn't know what he's talking about' and where it's contrased antithetically with the word 'know'. But in philosophical and academic usage generally, knowledge is understood to be a subset of belief. Knowledge is typically defined as 'justified true belief'.

That's why the idea of a 'belief system' is valuable and is widely used among scholars. A large part of what motivates people's behavior is precisely their system of beliefs, which may be true or false and may or may not have credible justifications. If we want to understand why people do the things that they do and say the things that they say, we have little choice but to inquire into their system of beliefs. That's just as true for scientists as it is for priests and occultists.

2. The expectation that people actually have, or that they should ideally have, a "proof system" instead of a "belief system", is simply too strong. In real life, few if any beliefs are held on the basis of logical or mathematical proofs. That's just as true for logicians, mathematicians and scientists in their non-professional lives as it is for everyone else. Most lay-people couldn't even understand a formal proof.

The suggestion that anyone who doesn't base their ideas on proofs is "delusional" is, well, delusional. That dismissive judgement would apply to the entire human race and deprive the word 'delusional' of its existing meaning and use.

Again, I suspect that the difficulty here is the use of an imprecise layman's understanding of the word 'proof' in which it kind of vaguely refers in the direction of any sort of evidence or justification, and where it's being contrasted with something like 'bullshit'.

If you didn't understand the first question then why didn't you just say so?

The point in the question was that I believe that people who accept beliefs without proof are delusional. I admit it was a weighted question, and could be taken as rhetorical or not depending on the answerers decision on how to attack it. It was meant to trigger debate. Get it?

No one has succeeded in countering the premise of the thread. My context and use of words is completely acceptable. Why not just address the issues I raise instead of trying to find fault with the structure of the question?

If you have the intellectual high ground then prove it by responding.

Prove to me that an unproven belief is scientifically legitimate. If not, bog off.



I'll let the theists respond to that one.

They can't. THAT is the point of this thread. To remind them that they believe in something unproven, and that their stance is ridiculous.

Signal,


It does seem like that, to many people. Even to me.

We've talked about this before, namely, how frustrating it can be to understand how someone has come to believe in God, and how misleading the testimonies of theists can be in this regard.


Why shoild you expect testimonies to be the same?
Ask 10 different people to describe a movie they just saw and you'll get 10 variations.



I agree that UD doesn't yet have the attitude that would be conducive to a more satisfactory exchange.


I agree.




This sounds like bad advice.

Just imagine someone actually telling a theist something like this:

"When you talk about God, I feel uncomfortable, even more, I feel threatened. If what you say is true, I have nowhere to hide. I am really scared of you and everyone else who talks about God. I don't know what to do. ... When you answer my questions about your beliefs and God, I feel even more scared and hopeless. There doesn't seem to be a way I could ever have the certainty about God that you have. I am afraid that I will forever be at the mercy of people who claim to know God. So far, they have done some nasty things to me as well. But I am not sure - perhaps they are allowed to do that to me, because they are theists."


I'm not sure what that has to do with the piece you responded to, but it sounds more of a social, psycological, issue, than an actual theistic one.

One having to justify their belief to some group of people claiming to be the standard of what it is to be human, sounds like a communist type of approach to society. In this, you are deemed deleuded if you cannot produce God to the board of directors. Once you are deemed as such your value as a human being diminishes. Dangerous stuff.



My experience has been that when I told a theist something like this, usually, all they seemed to have heard was "You theists are idiots" and they accused me of criticizing them. Which just made matters worse for me.


''A theist'' is ''A person''.
Every single person is different.
To judge ''theism'' on the testimony of ''some'' people, is NOT what ''theism'' is about.


I suspect that underneath many an atheist rant, there is a deep fear of theists, sometimes also due to being abused by theists physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.

If that is so, then many atheists are irrational, which flies in the face of
their claim to righteosness.


jan.

If a satisfactory exchange includes me allowing people to pedal their beliefs as facts to support the argument they use to take issue with my statements then no, I am not ready for that.

To allow someone this stance is to give in to BS, and insane conjecture.

NO.

Not me.

I'm curious; how do the people who use knowledge and facts do this without operating under a belief system?Lets look at the difference between the two shall we, knowledge and belief in a notion derived from Plato's philosophy has defined knowledge as justifiable true belief.
The commonality between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true and justified, with evidence for believing it's true. that is my point here. it is no longer called belief. thus it is not a belief system it is a knowledge system. You cannot make any headway within philosophy simply on belief, it has to have a knowledge base. So no amount of philosophising can ever come to a conclusion coming from a belief basis. it would be infantile to try.


Do they use knowledge and facts without "believing" that's what they're doing, perhaps? How would that work?They use knowledge and facts because they are founded in fact, they are no longer simply beliefs. See above.


I think it's easier to accept that critical minded people who use facts, are operating under the belief that facts exist, at least, and that they have knowledge of the facts,Exactly they have knowledge of that facts exist, they don't believe they exist, they have justified knowledge.

and furthermore they believe the facts are "relevant". I can't see how anyone could claim that critical thinking exists without invoking a belief system. . .Critical thinking by it's very nature invokes a knowledge system, it would be infantile to try to critical think with simply a belief in a thing, as anything can be believed.

You can call it belief if you wish, but if you do you will be redefining the word belief, and anybody who redefines words to suit their agenda should not be trusted.
But I prefer to call it knowledge as belief is unverified thus remains belief, but knowledge is proven belief hence why it is called knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The scientific method
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

So I repeat "no amount of philosophising can ever come to a conclusion, when it is coming from a belief basis, it would be infantile to try."

Here's an outline of a proof of God's existence:

Let 'A' represent any proposition.
Let 'B' represent the proposition 'God exists'.

Premises:

1. A
2. ~A
__________

3. (A & ~A)
4. Therefore B

You can construct a totally valid proof that way. It's simply a fact of normal deductive logic that if both halves of a logical contradiction are simultaneously true, the contradiction will imply the truth any conclusion that you like. Including God's existence.

The difficulty here is going to be with making the initial premises' truth assignments T at once. But logical proofs are about unfolding logical implications and they needn't always have true premises. It's still a logically valid implication

(A & ~A) => B

Many logicians have been uneasy about this little oddity in deduction, and there are non-standard logics that try to do away with it. (Which raises a number of other important issues.) See the SEP article on 'Paraconsistent Logic' here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

So don't say that nobody's provided a proof of God's existence. I just did. :D

Here's an outline of a proof of God's existence:

Let 'A' represent any proposition.
Let 'B' represent the proposition 'God exists'.

Premises:

1. A
2. ~A
__________

3. (A & ~A)
4. Therefore B

You can construct a totally valid proof that way. It's simply a fact of normal deductive logic that if both halves of a logical contradiction are simultaneously true, the contradiction will imply the truth any conclusion that you like. Including God's existence.

The difficulty here is going to be with making the initial premises' truth assignments T at once. But logical proofs are about unfolding logical implications and they needn't always have true premises. It's still a logically valid implication

(A & ~A) => B

Many logicians have been uneasy about this little oddity in deduction, and there are non-standard logics that try to do away with it. (Which raises a number of other important issues.) See the SEP article on 'Paraconsistent Logic' here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

So don't say that nobody's provided a proof of God's existence. I just did. :D

Shaker of salt needed on that one LOL.

Here's an outline of a proof of God's existence:

Let 'A' represent any proposition.
Let 'B' represent the proposition 'God exists'.

Premises:

1. A
2. ~A
__________

3. (A & ~A)
4. Therefore B And your proof for premise "B" is! Just saying let b=god exists, does not constitute proof at all, All it does is substitute B for god. So you've proven that "B" is another name or can be used as a substitute for the word god, so what.

So with that logic dragons, elves, orks, unicorns, the fsm, Russells teapot, etc etc etc.. are all proven to exist.
Huge fail lol, try again.

It is not fine to expect someone who doesn't believe to also accept it as fact. That is the issue here.

Why not?

Not saying that it is allright for people to expect others should believe as they do. I'd just like you to tell more about your reasoning about why it is wrong for some people to have such expectations of others.

Why not?

Not saying that it is allright for people to expect others should believe as they do. I'd just like you to tell more about your reasoning about why it is wrong for some people to have such expectations of others.

I repeat: If a satisfactory exchange includes me allowing people to pedal their beliefs as facts to support the argument they use to take issue with my statements then no, I am not ready for that.

The OP asks you WHY you believe without proof. I'd like to ask you why you believe that theists believe without proof.

I'd also like to know why you believe that the existence of God can be proven true or false, using logic.

You may not be aware of it, but everything you've posted demonstrates that you aren't looking for answers, because you believe you already know all the answers.

If you also think that this isn't really obvious, that you somehow have cleverly concealed your own solipsistic attitude you might not be as clever as you think you are. Your apparent belief in logic as the sole arbiter of truth isn't very clever, for starters.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the piece you responded to, but it sounds more of a social, psycological, issue, than an actual theistic one.

Theistic discourse does not happen in a vacuum, but is embedded in social, psychological and possibly other issues, which affect the theistic discourse.
Even if it takes place on a highly academic level.



One having to justify their belief to some group of people claiming to be the standard of what it is to be human, sounds like a communist type of approach to society. In this, you are deemed deleuded if you cannot produce God to the board of directors. Once you are deemed as such your value as a human being diminishes. Dangerous stuff.

And yet it is fairly common, theistic communities being anything but exempt from that.



Why shoild you expect testimonies to be the same?


''A theist'' is ''A person''.
Every single person is different.
To judge ''theism'' on the testimony of ''some'' people, is NOT what ''theism'' is about.

To a person who is not a theist and/or who is not a member of a theistic society, things look strikingly different, though.
They have an acute sense of being an outsider, of not belonging, and those who are members therefore appear the same in some crucial way.
Members tend to enforce this impression - "We are in, and you are out."
Doctrine often enough enforces this too - "Nobody gets to God except through this religious/spiritual organization."
An outsider cannot meaningfully distinguish between the grades of devotees and such.
This is how to an outsider, being hurt by one member is like being hurt by all/any members; if one member claims something, it is like they all do.
And when members appear to disagree or differ, this creates insurmountable-seeming confusion for the outsider.

I think one has to somehow come to a rather advanced level in order to become individualistic and to see members of a group as individuals, but such individualism does not seem to be the default for most people.



If that is so, then many atheists are irrational, which flies in the face of
their claim to righteosness.

Atheists have to save face too. :o

The OP asks you WHY you believe without proof. This is definitely a WHY that can be answered.

i already answered you...twice. i told you that i have proof that you can't appreciate, because you didn't experience it, so you don't recognize it.

now, if you will, answer my question...address my point. please. :)

I repeat: If a satisfactory exchange includes me allowing people to pedal their beliefs as facts to support the argument they use to take issue with my statements then no, I am not ready for that.

Nobody said that this is what a "satisfactory exchange" is about.

What I mean by "satisfactory exchange" is that there would be less anxiety, less ill will, less resorting to name-calling, more insight, more harmony, more goodwill.

I'd like to ask you why you believe that theists believe without proof.

This thread shows it. Offer some proof then dumbass. Do you really think that if theists had some proof they wouldn't share it? LOL.


I'd also like to know why you believe that the existence of God can be proven true or false, using logic.

A subject has to be proven before it can transition from possibility/belief in god, to a fact. I am open to the possiblity that god exists. Evidence is needed for logic/science to prove god's existence.


You may not be aware of it, but everything you've posted demonstrates that you aren't looking for answers, because you believe you already know all the answers.

How so? I am looking for verifiable answers. I do not know whether Christ is debating in this forum or not. I just ask for him to show his proof. LOL.

If answers to the OP are forthcoming then I have and will analyse them. Truth is you are just frustrated that you have nothing but word games and BS to skirt the issue of, proof for belief.


If you also think that this isn't really obvious, that you somehow have cleverly concealed your own solipsistic attitude you might not be as clever as you think you are. Your apparent belief in logic as the sole arbiter of truth isn't very clever, for starters.

How is exercising the tried and tested methods of verification the scientific community peppering this earth have proven to be valid above all else solipsistic? It is indeed an extroverted view, and nothing like a solipsistic POV.

Believing in a god because "I want tooooooo!" is the only solipsistic POV around here.

I can sense your frustration creeping in. Oh, and thanks for saying I am clever. I thought I was just outlining the fundamental elements/requirements of sane thought processes.

i already answered you...twice. i told you that i have proof that you can't appreciate, because you didn't experience it, so you don't recognize it.

now, if you will, answer my question...address my point. please. :)

I just did.

Your solipsistic proof is BS because you do not present it. Why not present your proof?

Nobody said that this is what a "satisfactory exchange" is about.

What I mean by "satisfactory exchange" is that there would be less anxiety, less ill will, less resorting to name-calling, more insight, more harmony, more goodwill.

Whatever. You want me to change and accept someone's belief as fact, just so they can feel better? Are you nuts?

Whatever. You want me to change and accept someone's belief as fact, just so they can feel better? Are you nuts?

You are playing the victim here, and you are being rude.

Several members have calmly replied to your posts, while you continue to hurl insults.

I can understand if you feel upset over this or that.

But you need to improve your attitude, or we will have no choice but to take action against you, such as by reporting you.

I suggest you learn to make I-messages (http://www.teachablemoment.org/elementary/imessages.html).

You are playing the victim here, and you are being rude.

Several members have calmly replied to your posts, while you continue to hurl insults.

I can understand if you feel upset over this or that.

But you need to improve your attitude, or we will have no choice but to take action against you, such as by reporting you.

I suggest you learn to make I-messages (http://www.teachablemoment.org/elementary/imessages.html).

LOL. Whatever. Got nothing left hey! There is substance in my posts and zero substance in you lot's. So I have a right to be slightly frustrated with the idiocy of theists.

I just did.

Your solipsistic proof is BS because you do not present it. Why not present your proof?

you're lookin' at it. you're talking to it. you just don't recognize it, because you did not live through it.

now if you would, address the question as to whether or not you understand the difference between how and why, and how it relates to your pursuit, or the lack thereof.

it's like you're looking for the sun underground. you can see the tree roots, and you may be able to feel it's warmth, but you don't know it's there, because you're not looking in the right place, and you're like, "damnit, if i can't find the sun underground, then it doesn't exist".

i want you to address what i said about how and why. i want you to acknowledge that i have a damn good point. can you do that please? and if not, then why not?

you're lookin' at it. You're talking to it. You just don't recognize it, because you did not live through it.

Now if you would, address the question as to whether or not you understand the difference between how and why, and how it relates to your pursuit, or the lack thereof.

It's like you're looking for the sun underground. You can see the tree roots, and you may be able to feel it's warmth, but you don't know it's there, because you're not looking in the right place, and you're like, "damnit, if i can't find the sun underground, then it doesn't exist".

I want you to address what i said about how and why. I want you to acknowledge that i have a damn good point. Can you do that please? And if not, then why not?

lol

I will take another look. Is it legible?

do you know that how and why are two different questions? how is "by what manner or way, or by what means", and why is "what is the cause, reason, or purpose". science answers "how" but it doesn't answer "why", and it never will. it's not supposed to.

Ha Ha. Science doesn't prove why/how a human evolved?

If you are trying to use this as a context to frame a need for intelligent design then you have already made the assumption that there is an intelligence behind the universe.



people use science in the same way they use anything, for bad or for good depending upon the intentions of those using it. it does not however, determine what is bad or good or why. it doesn't assign meaning to anything, so theoretically at least, you're dooming yourself to a meaningless existence, regardless of what you know. though i find it hard to believe you really do that.

BS. Science is all about why. Why does a dog need sharp teeth? To rip meat. This is proven by looking at other carnivores and observing the trend. This is science.

Why does the sun rise? because the earth spins it in and out of view.
Why is hydrogen so volatile?
Why do cat eyes glow in the dark?
Why do the oceans rise and fall periodically?

The reason I didn't address this point is beacuse it is BS.

Ha Ha. Science doesn't prove why/how a human evolved?

If you are trying to use this as a context to frame a need for intelligent design then you have already made the assumption that there is an intelligence behind the universe.




BS. Science is all about why. Why does a dog need sharp teeth? To rip meat. This is proven by looking at other carnivores and observing the trend. This is science.

Why does the sun rise? because the earth spins it in and out of view.
Why is hydrogen so volatile?
Why do cat eyes glow in the dark?
Why do the oceans rise and fall periodically?

The reason I didn't address this point is beacuse it is BS.

so you're in a public forum, in writing, in front of everyone, dictionaries in hand, asserting that there's no difference between the questions why? and how?

i gave you the flippin definitions, straight outta websters.

FAIL.

so you're in a public forum, in writing, in front of everyone, dictionaries in hand, asserting that there's no difference between the questions why? and how?

i gave you the flippin definitions, straight outta websters.

FAIL.

I didn't assert that they are the same. You said science doesn't deal with WHY. I said it does. The ball is in your court.

How silly.

In physics, how and why amount to the same thing.
Philosophy (and language) see a difference between how and why; the latter suggests a "purposefulness".

Physicists say "this is how electrons flow in a conductor", or "this is why electrons flow in a conductor" and know that both sentences say the same thing. Why = how.

Why do humans ask questions? is not the same as: How do humans ask questions?

yeah?

How silly.

In physics, how and why amount to the same thing.
Philosophy (and language) see a difference between how and why; the latter suggests a "purposefulness".

Physicists say "this is how electrons flow in a conductor", or "this is why electrons flow in a conductor" and know that both sentences say the same thing. Why = how.

Why do humans ask questions? is not the same as: How do humans ask questions?

yeah?

And? There are different meanings in different contexts. One must word the sentence how one wishes for said meaning. What does this have to do with anything?

Lori is just looking (badly) for some way to justify belief. By demanding there must be a purpose behind the universe. LOL.

I repeat: I DID NOT assert they are the same. That is just the twisted interpretation of a god botherer.

What does this have to do with anything?What does explaining the "difference" between why and how have to do with the last couple of pages of this thread?
Or what does it have to do with your mission--to boldly go where a lot of idiots have gone before?

That is just the twisted interpretation of a god botherer. That is just the dismissive bumpf of a deluded solipsist. I bet you don't even know what a solipsist is?

What does explaining the "difference" between why and how have to do with the last couple of pages of this thread?
Or what does it have to do with your mission--to boldly go where a lot of idiots have gone before?
That is just the dismissive bumpf of a deluded solipsist. I bet you don't even know what a solipsist is?

All told, zero content. You seriously entertain the notion that someone as eloquent as myself would not understand this difference? LOL. The point is Lori hasn't pointed out the relevance of her statements. Though I see it as an attempt to build a case to attribute an intelligent purpose to existence without PROOF.

Considering I was the one to first use the term in this thread I should hope so LOL.

How does this prove god's existence?

Did I claim to you that my parents are definitely my parents? You are right. Without proof I can't be sure. Trying to go emotional with your BS is pretty low.
If you can comfortably live with the "delusion" of accepting persons as your parents in the absence of dna testing it begs why you have this 10 page hangup about god on sci forums ... (or it could be more accurate to say that you are simply inflating your values with hyperbole to give free reign to your atheism - we see that quite a lot here from various posters - militant poorly thought out atheism : a seemingly popular alternative to militant poorly thought out theism)

Hah!

You said you're open to the possibility of God's existence. But you qualify this with the necessity of the existence of an explanation. Not just any explanation, but one which corresponds to what you think logic is.

So, as long as someone explains how, and why God exists, in a logical way so you can write it down, take it home and study it, poke holes in it etc, you're "open" to the possibility . . .

yeah, right.

This is despite being informed (perhaps by solipsist theistic wannabes) that God can't be proven or disproven, not with logic. If the subject was a logical premiss, wouldn't someone have come up with a logical theory by now, seeing how the question has been around since, well, since we first started to ponder the existence of the big guy?

If you can comfortably live with the "delusion" of accepting persons as your parents in the absence of dna testing it begs why you have this 10 page hangup about god on sci forums ... (or it could be more accurate to say that you are simply inflating your values with hyperbole to give free reign to your atheism - we see that quite a lot here from various posters - militant poorly thought out atheism : a seemingly popular alternative to militant poorly thought out theism)

I answered this already. You obviously missed it.


Did I claim to you that my parents are definitely my parents? You are right. Without proof I can't be sure. Trying to go emotional with your BS is pretty low.

You are the ones who can't break down my stance. Who is thinking poorly?

Offer proof of god, or shut up.

Hah!

You said you're open to the possibility of God's existence. But you qualify this with the necessity of the existence of an explanation. Not just any explanation, but one which corresponds to what you think logic is.

So, as long as someone explains how, and why God exists, in a logical way so you can write it down, take it home and study it, poke holes in it etc, you're "open" to the possibility . . .

yeah, right.

This is despite being informed (perhaps by solipsist theistic wannabes) that God can't be proven or disproven, not with logic. If the subject was a logical premiss, wouldn't someone have come up with a logical theory by now, seeing how the question has been around since, well, since we first started to ponder the existence of the big guy?

Point is believing in god is nuts because of the fact there is no proof. All the rest is BS.

The only way you can question my stance is by being illogical. LOL.

Offer proof of god, or shut up. Would a photo do it?
I have one of me and the big guy at the local bar, last Friday.
He looks like he's enjoying himself for once, the cranky old bugger.

Mind you, it was a candid shot, so he's got that "caught in the headlights" look.

Why do you assume that god can't be proven to exist?

I do not assume that god can be proven to exist.

I just assume that for god to be proven to exist proof must be found.

Until then god-belief is conjecture.

Why do you assume that god can't be proven to exist?
I don't. I assume that logic can't prove the existence/nonexistence of such as God (and a lot of other things, but that's not important right now . . .).

I do not assume that god can be proven to exist. But you assume that a logical explanation exists.

I just assume that for god to be proven to exist proof must be found.
See? And you can't describe what the nature of this proof is, or "must be".

Until then belief is conjecture. Until when? Isn't this your own personal conjecture? Aren't you just trying to tie up all the apparently loose ends in an otherwise poorly structured logic?

You should talk to this guy I was at the pub with last Friday.

The Why and How of existence, and more:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2749616&postcount=261

I don't. I assume that logic can't prove the existence/nonexistence of such as God (and a lot of other things, but that's not important right now . . .).
But you assume that a logical explanation exists.
See? And you can't describe what the nature of this proof is, or "must be".Until when? Isn't this your own personal conjecture? Aren't you just trying to tie up all the apparently loose ends in an otherwise poorly structured logic?

You should talk to this guy I was at the pub with last Friday.

None of this takes away from the fact that one must have proof for ones beliefs to be more than conjecture. You just do not understand the principles of reality.

I don't. I assume that logic can't prove the existence/nonexistence of such as God

Same thing. Proof is applied using logic. You are saying that god can't be proved or disproved to exist with logical systems so therefore he must exist; without proof I might add. BS.


But you assume that a logical explanation exists.


I do not assume an explanation exists.
I do not assume an explanation doesn't exist.
I do not assume a logical explanation exists.
I do not assume a logical explanation doesn't exist.
You assume an explanation exists because you believe.
I just assume that IF an explanation exists it needs to be proved.

You assume god exists. That is the POV you are applying. Do not transpose your POV onto my thoughts.


And you can't describe what the nature of this proof is, or "must be"

How could I lol. I am not prescient or omniscient.


You should talk to this guy I was at the pub with last Friday.
I have had enough BS with just you lot.

you don't have to understand this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Xs_vxBTdpxQ/TbVgthxex7I/AAAAAAAAKmI/5IW_ETxz2-s/s1600/Calculus_Formulas.gif

to know that it exists...

None of this takes away from the fact that one must have proof for ones beliefs to be more than conjecture.What if one has proof but no belief?

What if you open your eyes and see proof? Do you have to believe you opened your eyes, or that you can see? What if you don't understand how human vision works?
What if you see that the sky is "blue", do you now need to believe that the sky is blue and that you are "seeing" the sky?
Isn't "just looking" enough of a proof, despite what you may or may not think/believe about your sense of vision?

If I experience something, anything at all, do I need to believe something? What if I reject/suspend/renounce any belief I might have, including that "I" am experiencing "something". What then?

I answered this already. You obviously missed it.
we refuted it already - several times in fact



You are the ones who can't break down my stance. Who is thinking poorly?

Offer proof of god, or shut up.
the confidence afforded by loaded questions is only a praiseworthy diversion and evasion tactic

What if one has proof but no belief?

What if you open your eyes and see proof? Do you have to believe you opened your eyes, or that you can see? What if you don't understand how human vision works?
What if you see that the sky is "blue", do you now need to believe that the sky is blue and that you are "seeing" the sky?
Isn't "just looking" enough of a proof, despite what you may or may not think/believe about your sense of vision?

If I experience something, anything at all, do I need to believe something? What if I reject/suspend/renounce any belief I might have, including that "I" am experiencing "something". What then?

Children learn the world around them through scientific review. Trial and error. Cause and effect. And documenting within the mind to better move through the world.

You are just trying to fall back on solipsistic philosphical musings.

we refuted it already - several times in fact


You what. I admit that I do not know for sure whether my parents are my biological parents. So your line of thought has zero relevance.

I didn't assert that they are the same. You said science doesn't deal with WHY. I said it does. The ball is in your court.

no you didn't, you equated them. science does not answer why. it never has, and it never will.

You what. I admit that I do not know for sure whether my parents are my biological parents. So your line of thought has zero relevance.

yet for some funny reason you aren't running around like a mad cheese ball demanding proof of your parents ... funny that, eh?

you don't have to understand this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Xs_vxBTdpxQ/TbVgthxex7I/AAAAAAAAKmI/5IW_ETxz2-s/s1600/Calculus_Formulas.gif

to know that it exists...

I can see it. Anyone I show this can see it (if they aren't blind). Once we all see it we can ascertain/prove it exists.

Can you see god? Can I see god? Can anyone see god?

Can a vision of god be recorded and verified by a group of unbiased reviewers? (Possibly. I am waiting to see it) Then we can prove he exists?

Understanding god is one thing. Proving gods existence is another.

no you didn't, you equated them.

I did not equate them. You did in your reading. I just gave examples of WHY questions that science deals with.

You are assuming the 'purpose' meaning of the word can be applied because you believe. I do not believe so your BS has no relevance to me.


science does not answer why. it never has, and it never will.
Tell me the WHY questions that science can't answer then.

Children learn the world around them through scientific review.Really?

What do adults do? Stop learning when they finally realise they aren't children any more?
So, again, what if one has proof but no belief? Is that even possible?
You can't answer my question, can you?

yet for some funny reason you aren't running around like a mad cheese ball demanding proof of your parents ... funny that, eh?

You are assuming my relationship with them bestows them with any regard in my life.

You are assuming I give a damn whether they are my parents or not.

Indeed you are assuming they are alive or that I have some of their DNA to test.

Low blows LG.

I just gave examples of WHY questions that science deals with.The only way this is possible is by equating why with how; that's what science does.
But the words are not equivalent (except when explaining the 'behaviour' of physical systems). Actually, I imagine that scientists probably prefer to use "how" instead of "why" and avoid the semantic conundrum.

Really?

What do adults do? Stop learning when they finally realise they aren't children any more?

The process continues through life. YAWN.


So, again, what if one has proof but no belief? Is that even possible?
You can't answer my question, can you?

One can choose not to believe if one wishes.

Do you have some proof of god then? Because this is getting rather tedious.

You are assuming my relationship with them bestows them with any regard in my life.

You are assuming I give a damn whether they are my parents or not.
How hideous of you to reject the scientific pursuit of cause.

Only the deluded are satisfied with the paltry knowledge afforded by effects


Indeed you are assuming they are alive or that I have some of their DNA to test.
A lack of rigorous investigation is another quality of the deluded


Low blows LG.
Accurate estimations of your deluded state I'd say ... all by the measure of teh same standard for proof your bring to the discussion about about god.

The only way this is possible is by equating why with how; that's what science does.
But the words are not equivalent (except when explaining the 'behaviour' of physical systems). Actually, I imagine that scientists probably prefer to use "how" instead of "why" and avoid the semantic conundrum.

Tell me the WHY questions that science can't answer then.

How hideous of you to reject the scientific pursuit of cause.

Only the deluded are satisfied with the paltry knowledge afforded by effects


A lack of rigorous investigation is another quality of the deluded


Accurate estimations of your deluded state I'd say ... all by the measure of teh same standard for proof your bring to the discussion about about god.

Complete fucking BS, of no regard or relevance to the debate or indeed the point you failed to make.

Oh boy:

Can you see god? Yes, I can. When I close my eyes and focus a certain way. Sometimes when my eyes are open. I don't see this thing with my eyes though--those are for seeing external light.

Can I see god?Yes, I believe you can, well, probably you can. You should stop thinking about it though, and just let it happen. The experience has absolutely nothing to do with thinking, and in fact thinking is a distraction.

Can anyone see god? I believe so. I know more than a few people who report the same kind of experience as I've had and continue to have.

What does God look like? It's hard to describe with words, words are tools of logic.

My parents are dead. So forgive my lack of joy in the prospect of digging them up you *&%$^

And so is god until he shows himself.

The gig seems to be up.

The gig seems to be up.

Any last requests?

Would you mind terribly shooting yourself in the foot, on the way out?

Can you see god half-a-brain?



Yes, I can. When I close my eyes and focus a certain way. Sometimes when my eyes are open. I don't see this thing with my eyes though--those are for seeing external light.
Yes, I believe you can, well, probably you can. You should stop thinking about it though, and just let it happen. The experience has absolutely nothing to do with thinking, and in fact thinking is a distraction.
I believe so. I know more than a few people who report the same kind of experience as I've had and continue to have.

What does God look like? It's hard to describe with words

Needs to be on a t-shirt that one :)

The gig seems to be up.
actually he never stopped jiving away

Would you mind terribly shooting yourself in the foot, on the way out?

No bullets left because god, belief in god, half-brained BS, craziness, fudging, and 'all theists' have all been dispatched already.

Any last requests?

They might request an infinitely long cigarette that takes forever to burn.

God Proofs: RIP.

Can you see god half-a-brain?Well, I can with my better half-a.
What, are you saying you can't see God? That's a shame. Oh well.
No brilliant self-effulgence emanating from the seat of your consciousness then?
tsk tsk.

*The curtains close and the theists are left holding their balls*

My parents are dead. So forgive my lack of joy in the prospect of digging them up you *&%$^
If you don't have proof of their parenthood, why get emmotional?


And so is god until he shows himself.
It might pay to first get proof of who your parents are first ... unless of course you can somehow fathom a body of proof outside of the language of quarks

'Twas the tallest tale of all time.

*The curtains close and the theists are left holding their balls*
/universal distress finally finishes his gig and exits the stage

The God who never was could not have paid the astronomical electric bill for the gigantic light that�s supposed to be so clear and bright� but is naught but a blacked out night of wishes of the blind trying to lead the right.

In the clarity of the blind, a wall-eyed man is bling.

The God who never was could not have paid the astronomical electric bill for the gigantic light that�s supposed to be so clear and bright� but is naught but a blacked out night of wishes of the blind trying to lead the right.

The atheist caveman in his world of truth, built a world in which everything had its use and then claimed all this leads to nothing since life's a complicated ruse

The atheist caveman in his world of truth, built a world in which everything had its use and then claimed all this leads to nothing since life's a complicated ruse

The theist was absolutely astounded and surprised to note that our current complexity and its constituents took nearly 14 billion years of physical processes along with slow and mindless evolution to form him, this long yardstick sticking in his throat and gagging his comprehension so much that he had nothing of proof or even relevance to say about his own �God did it� notion of invisible goings-on behind every scene.

Nay, young feller-me-lad. God is not invisible.

Actually, he brushes up quite well, when you manage to get the ol' fella out and about.
He's just a bit shy, really.

Nay, young feller-me-lad. God is not invisible.

Actually, he brushes up quite well, when you manage to get the ol' fella out and about.
He's just a bit shy, really.

Is that ol' fella as old as one could ever be?

Does He have any earliest memory?

The theist was absolutely astounded and surprised to note that our current complexity and its constituents took nearly 14 billion years of physical processes along with slow and mindless evolution to form him, this long yardstick sticking in his throat and gagging his comprehension so much that he had nothing of proof or even relevance to say about his own �God did it� notion of invisible goings-on behind every scene.
Actually I would be surprised if ideas on time frames that drive ideas of evolution would remain unchanged for 60 years ....

Actually I would be surprised if ideas on time frames that drive ideas of evolution would remain unchanged for 60 years ....

The fossils match the junk DNA of current creatures which also matches their changes in the womb as embryos. Triple closure. Evolution is fact. Its methods are ever under study. No immutability. The 'divinely inspired' Bible got it wrong.

The fossils match the junk DNA of current creatures which also matches their changes in the womb as embryos. Triple closure. Evolution is fact. Its methods are ever under study. No immutability. The 'divinely inspired' Bible got it wrong.
I never said evolution wasn't a fact.

I said that I would b e surprised if ideas on the time frames it appears in would be constant for 60 years.