You cannot Prove God's existence.

Originally posted by Seraphim XIII
Drop the semantics and stick to the subject, will you?

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What was it I said? Oh ya, I said it was a waist of my time.

And then went ahead to claim that God doesn't speak with us...for whatever reason you decided that that is provable but whether he exists not is beyond me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Troll.

That's unjustified. He was making a fair criticism; meet it or reject it, but don't proclaim 'troll', that's not on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And then went ahead to claim that God doesn't speak with us...for whatever reason you decided that that is provable but whether he exists not is beyond me.

So does god talk to you?crazy 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So does god talk to you?crazy 😆

No.

What has that to do with anything, you can't argue on such small levels and then apply it to everything, since apparently God is talking to sithsaber...I don't think it does. But since you don't speak out against the existence of God how can you be so sure that this God does not talk to people?

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

What has that to do with anything, you can't argue on such small levels and then apply it to everything, since apparently God is talking to sithsaber...I don't think it does. But since you don't speak out against the existence of God how can you be so sure that this God does not talk to people?

I was just checking to see if you had a personal luncheon with god lately. That would explain why you have such a strong opinion on rather god can talk to us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was just checking to see if you had a personal luncheon with god lately. That would explain why you have such a strong opinion on rather god can talk to us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't have a strong opinion on God talking to us, in fact I agree with you, what I don't understand is the totally different behaviours you portray.

What behaviours are you talking about?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What behaviours are you talking about?

Saying that we can't prove God and shouldn't care about it, but when we talk about some people thinking they talk to God you deny that as a possibility. Just odd.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you don't know at all...also use Occam's Razor incorrectly...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Saying that we can't prove God and shouldn't care about it, but when we talk about some people thinking they talk to God you deny that as a possibility. Just odd.

Some people may think they talk to god, and most of the time it is as simple as opening the bible. Sometimes "talk to god" is code for reading the bible. Other people "talk to god" by listening to the inner self, or to nature. But none of this is really talking to god. So, when someone claims they can talk to god, I assume they mean metaphorically. However, I was talking literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Some people may think they talk to god, and most of the time it is as simple as opening the bible. Sometimes "talk to god" is code for reading the bible. Other people "talk to god" by listening to the inner self, or to nature. But none of this is really talking to god. So, when someone claims they can talk to god, I assume they mean metaphorically. However, I was talking literally.

What if they mean it literally? Why are you certain that that can't be possible?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What if they mean it literally? Why are you certain that that can't be possible?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What if they mean it literally? Why are you certain that that can't be possible?

1. God can literally talk to us.

2. God cannot literally talk to us.

Which is the simpler answer?

In the first answer, there would have to be a god being to talk to us. God being + talking to us. In the second answer, there would not be a god being. I think the second on is simpler then the first one.

If God truly exists, then why does he not allow his existance to be proven ?

Is this all part of "testing our Faith" and "punishing the doubters" ? 😬

I also think it's sad that so many of us resort to the beleif in God because we cannot face the real world. This world is full of suffering and cruelty yes, but we have the power to change it. Hiding behind a deity that no one knows to truly exist is cowardly in my opinion.

Also "leaving it all up to God" is lazy, and an easy way out for us to not have to commit to our duties of helping others in need.

Side note: Occam's razor is wrong. Period.

Anyone who uses it against religion does nothing but make a fool of themselves imo.

One cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god.

That does not necessarily mean one cannot prove or disprove the various claims made by religious texts or religious people.

Originally posted by Alliance
Side note: Occam's razor is wrong. Period.

Anyone who uses it against religion does nothing but make a fool of themselves imo.

Why do you have such a strong opinion on using Occam's razor against religion? Are you referring to the futility of doing so?

I have a strong opinion against using Occams razor at all. This 14th century principle no longer functions adequately in modern logic.

Simple explanations are usually more effective, but the simplist explination is often not the best. Oversimplification is a gross error, and modern science has shown that things don't always work in the simplest of fashions.

Trying to disprove god is a logical fallacy. People assume god becuase the concept is hammered into thier heads from birth. An assumption without justification is not a strong starting ground for an argument.

Thus people who shout "Occam's razor" to disprove god are:
1. entering into an arguemnt in which they cannot logically win
2. Using an archaic concept to attack another one when both religion and science have thankfully evolved to new levels.
3. Using a precept that is flawed and does not accurately represent the natural world beyond a basic essence.

Thats pretty much a complete failure to me.

Originally posted by Alliance
I have a strong opinion against using Occams razor at all. This 14th century principle no longer functions adequately in modern logic.

Simple explanations are usually more effective, but the simplist explination is often not the best. Oversimplification is a gross error, and modern science has shown that things don't always work in the simplest of fashions.

Trying to disprove god is a logical fallacy. People [b]assume god becuase the concept is hammered into thier heads from birth. An assumption without justification is not a strong starting ground for an argument.

Thus people who shout "Occam's razor" to disprove god are:
1. entering into an arguemnt in which they cannot logically win
2. Using an archaic concept to attack another one when both religion and science have thankfully evolved to new levels.
3. Using a precept that is flawed and does not accurately represent the natural world beyond a basic essence.

Thats pretty much a complete failure to me. [/B]

Occam's razor
"When you have two competing theories which make exactly the same predictions, the one that is simpler is the better."

If you don't like that one, how about this one?

Carl Sagan
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So if someone claims that they talk to god, that would be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof.