Not a burden at all. God exists and His existance is evident in everything around us. No proof is needed. It is all around us. Just because He does not exist for you because you choose to believe so does not require anyone to come up with proof. Open your eyesstill the task to prove it always seems to delute your faithful ways, proof beyound your flower dreams and butterflies conceptions..............
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There are philosophical arguments that provide proof of God. However, these apply to philosophical discussion and not religious debates. I really wouldn't want to claim that there is no way to prove the existence of God. That would a complete absolute.
Some schools of thought say there is a way to prove God's existence, using strict scientific method, no less. But the first step is defining what you mean by "God."
I would begin with the operational definition that God is Spirit. Why? Consensus. Most people think of God as spirit. It's as good a place to start as any. What is spirit? For now we can only say that it is another mode of being. Matter is one mode; Mind is another mode (completely different from Matter); Spirit is a third mode, as different from Mind as Mind is different from Matter. As I mentioned in another thread, if it helps, consider this in neutral terms: Level 1, Level 2, Level 3. This way we can avoid subtle, biased connotations associated with "Matter, Mind and Spirit."
Then we have to define what we mean by proof. Most people think of scientific proof as empirical (Level 1)...and this is where problems begin.
If you are defining God as a Level 3 entity, where is the fairness is requiring Level 1 (or for that matter, Level 2) evidence? Would you use a telescope to prove axioms of mathematics? No, you would use rules of logic.
Simply put: depending on the phenomenon you want to investigate, you can successfully apply Scientific Method as long as the tools used and the data collected are consistent with the Level being studied.
Its not the God the only problem, the logic behind the concept of proof is a issue. You must define what proof is first, and only when you did it you can try to prove God, but you always need to remember that the definition of proof was your choice, there is no reason that makes that definition better than others... its just a matter of preference.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its not the God the only problem, the logic behind the concept of proof is a issue. You must define what proof is first, and only when you did it you can try to prove God, but you always need to remember that the definition of proof was your choice, there is no reason that makes that definition better than others... its just a matter of preference.
this is how far most believers would go to make an argument for their faith or god. warping and changing the very meaning of the english language{not dissin u or anythin, its just a fact}
Everyone wants proof. Something they can see and touch. I believe in God too and I have faith. I believe in air, yet I can not see it, but I still know it's there. God is like that to me. I have seen Him work in my life. I have tried Him for myself and yes, I know he's real.
When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. I could give examples after examples about how I know God is real, and I'm sure some can refute that everything I say as coincidences etc, but when it comes down to it, it's all about faith. 🙂
Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is how far most believers would go to make an argument for their faith or god. warping and changing the very meaning of the english language{not dissin u or anythin, its just a fact}
What do you mean by warping and changing the very meaning of the english language ? Explain.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Leon, I dont disagree with you but I just wanted to point out it is understandable that God would be beyond our logic...much like an ant trying to understand the motives of a human being, except God in comparison would be an even more extreme jump in understanding.
Likewise, a being higher than a human is no more a god than a human being is to an ant.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
That is true...unless we are talking about the creater of all other things, then such a being would be fit for the term 'god'.
If the universe is subject to efficient causation, i.e. the universe is created, then the creator is also subject to efficient causation, i.e. the creator must also be created.
Originally posted by RoguePw25
Everyone wants proof. Something they can see and touch. I believe in God too and I have faith. I believe in air, yet I can not see it, but I still know it's there. God is like that to me. I have seen Him work in my life. I have tried Him for myself and yes, I know he's real.When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. I could give examples after examples about how I know God is real, and I'm sure some can refute that everything I say as coincidences etc, but when it comes down to it, it's all about faith. 🙂
you can feal air blowing, moving ships with sails, rotating wind mill. theres scientific proof for air and you can physically feal it too, niither exist for god.
There is no proof of the scientific method(or scientific proof if you want) it is something that we choose to believe in it, and to use it. The scientific method in some part of it, basically is a way to define what proof is, so there is no way to prove it since we will need another definition of proof to prove it. God is like the scientific method, we choose to believe in it. Everything else is like this.