Prove God Exists...

Started by Esau Cairn8 pages
Originally posted by Astner
But they couldn't be proven. Are you implying that things can exist without evidence?

They were proven by the heat we felt from the sun.
They were proven by the fact that living beings needed UV to thrive & grow.

Man has also proven they can thrive & grow with & WITHOUT religion, faith or God.

They were only labelled & given (scientific) names as part of evidence in the knowledge of how things worked.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
They were proven by the heat we felt from the sun.
They were proven by the fact that living beings needed UV to thrive & grow.

So as long as something exists it proves itself regardless of whether or not there's evidence or theories supporting it?

Originally posted by Astner
So as long as something exists it proves itself regardless of whether or not there's evidence or theories supporting it?

I have no idea where you're coming from but I hope you can see I'm being respectful & not heated in my responses to you.
Not like some Christians on this thread...

If something exists, isn't that solid evidence that it does?

I exist.
You exist.
The evidence is our dialogue together.

If you had never responded or I never made this thread then our existence would not have been proven to eachother.

And wouldn't you conclude that being a fact & not a theory?

What are you wearing btw?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I have no idea where you're coming from but I hope you can see I'm being respectful & not heated in my responses to you.
Not like some Christians on this thread...

If something exists, isn't that solid evidence that it does?

No, as determining something's very existence will actually require evidence for said existence. If reality worked as that sentence of yours, then anyone (theists included) could assert God's existence by saying simply: "God exists, isn't that solid evidence that He does?" And you'd be right to laugh at their conceit and call it an ipsedixetism.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I exist.
A solipsist would say otherwise.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You exist.
Most likely.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The evidence is our dialogue together.
That could all be taking place in your mind, just like the "dialogue" between a die hard believer and God.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
And wouldn't you conclude that being a fact & not a theory?
Ehhh, chalk one up for proper use of the word theory:

YouTube video

All you've hypothesised is that there's a 50/50 chance that either Astner or myself are God moonlighting on KMC.

Using deductive arguments to prove god's existence is a double edged sword, because you can literally argue anything exist or that it doesn't. You can just keep adding premises or make a premise that is true but leads to false conclusions.

Ex.)
1.)Billy is fast
2.)Billy is human
Conclusion: Any human named Billy is fast.

True premises;false conclusion.

There's a reason why natural philosophy switched from deductive reasoning, to inductive reasoning.

Anyway, there's no persuading evidence to convince anyone with functional faculties that god exists.

I've been hyphotesizing Astner is an AI for a while now. That's true and you shall believe.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I've been hyphotesizing Astner is an AI for a while now. That's true and you shall believe.

AI? What is that?

Artificial Intelligence.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
All you've hypothesised is that there's a 50/50 chance that either Astner or myself are God moonlighting on KMC.
50/50. 100% chance that your both fanciful peasants who don't realize that God is a spambot.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
Anyway, there's no persuading evidence to convince anyone with functional faculties that god exists.

See, I was expecting multiple posts from every Christian or Catholic to express how their blind faith in God was ample proof to his existence...but surprisingly no one has.

And yet isn't blind faith what it's all about?

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
1.)Billy is fast
2.)Billy is human
Conclusion: Any human named Billy is fast.

True premises;false conclusion.


You don't arrive at the conclusion from the premises.

Originally posted by Van Hohenheim
There's a reason why natural philosophy switched from deductive reasoning, to inductive reasoning.

No. Deductive reasoning is generally not used in natural philosophy because we don't have a proper understanding of nature.

Originally posted by Star428
We [b]all (including babies and mentally retarded) inherited the sinful nature from Adam and Eve:

http://www.gotquestions.org/inherit-sin.html

That's an undeniable FACT. [/B]

Okay you are legitimately insane. Why do you think this is a fact? All he does is pull stuff from bible passages. You can't truly believe the things you say.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
See, I was expecting multiple posts from every Christian or Catholic to express how their blind faith in God was ample proof to his existence...but surprisingly no one has.

And yet isn't blind faith what it's all about?

Blind faith is real faith. The Bible teaches this.

But then people need to realize faith isn't proof. That is the whole thing with faith, you don't have proof. Now people will say well they don't need proof and that is fine and dandy, but if the thread is specifically asking for actual proof there is zero.

At this point in time, God is as real as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny.

Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others?

Asking to both groups.

Because people rule and form laws based on there favorite book.

I'd like to pass a law that all men must dress accordingly based solely on which side of the tracks they live on. Wouldn't want our women being besmirched by them greaser punks.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Why can't everyone be happy with their own ideology without attacking the others.

Because that's boring?