The debate "There is no proof that God exists" was started by
March 20, 2015, 1:03 pm.
60 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 67 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
mdavis1309 posted 5 arguments, PsychDave posted 33 arguments, danielle posted 2 arguments, Devinc25 posted 1 argument, Sosocratese posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
wmd posted 2 arguments, debateer posted 2 arguments, AdamChase posted 1 argument, epoche posted 34 arguments, Getmurked posted 8 arguments, SmileCookie posted 1 argument, Naudious posted 4 arguments, Sosocratese posted 4 arguments, debunkmyths posted 1 argument, animegirlxx posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
mdavis1309, SiGuy27, PsychDave, CX_LD_Ashley, danielle, Electrogoose, Egert_Clueless, misfitcarrot, Devinc25, Devin, Sosocratese, megantatertot, Cormi98, sickboyblonde, Alex11113, l2lll, Paul_Gandara, Razzakel, DarkSkyz06, BRG1102478, tommyg, tr, keepscrolling, Untamed, transfanboy, jesusorgy, sdiop and 33 visitors agree.
Superr1fifty, wmd, Naudious, debateer, milimehta068, AdamChase, Mrcmck, Daph, epoche, Francis01, HankPalmer, PathwayHomeFan, SmileCookie, Getmurked, frozen_emily, dominic, Mike861, pecker, murch, debunkmyths, ufufugh, magda32, animegirlxx, fdnisyou, ArsonLarson, judge and 41 visitors disagree.
You will never attain scientific proof, you will never disprove scientifically his existence or lack of. You will never be provided proof unless you believe, believers will never provide scientific proof. To you, scientific proof is your reasoning, to believers, their faith is their proof. You can't discredit or deny his existence to believers, and believers cannot prove his existence to non believers.
At least try to recognize these realities, I apologize for being argumentative but to you, no, their is no proof. I can digress there to appease to your argument but I can't because to believers he is real but not tangible, by faith.
And what bearing does this have on the proof of God's existence?
I am open to proof, I just have not been presented any.
"The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing".
Your lens is forever expanding, don't limit it or let your perceptions limit it, you'll be doing yourself and humanity a disservice.
When criticizing someone's reading comprehension, it's a good idea to read the comment you are criticizing. I asked to you explain your use of Socrates, repeatedly. Your use of Aristotle makes sense, which is why I didn't ask for clarification about it. Could you try to reign in your condescension long enough to respond to the actual question rather than making yourself look foolish by mocking a question no one has asked?
You seem to be challenged in reading comprehension or grasping my ques, this is difficult for me to keep entertaining. I don't feel the need to connect the referenced quote about not entertaining a thought by being narrow minded enough to not entertain a thought, but okay you made me do it.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
To me, this implies being able to try to understand something before you make a judgement. Also, entertaining a thought, thesis, argument without automatic dismissal.
In my best educated guess you are incapable of being objective because you lack epoche and the notion of the Phenomenoligal approach to understanding things. Therefore you're claims are subjective.
Further, I am not dismissing your argument, I am asking you to explain what your argument is. I ask you for explanations of your quotes, and you question my open mindedness. You attempt to borrow authority and, when asked how those great philosophers, and dictionaries, lend support to your arguments, you move on to attacking the abilities of those questioning you. You claimed to be able to explain how each definition supported your position, but didn't explain any. You claim to have so much wisdom but are unable or unwilling to share it.
Finally, the topic is whether there is proof of God's existence. You are making the claim that there is, so wouldn't the unsubstantiated claim be yours? We are asking for some kind of substantiation for your claim, and you are criticizing that were are claiming you don't have proof as an unsubstantiated claim. Once again you are creating a circular argument to pass the burden of proof and hide from having to explain your position.
I am equating the word proof with any form of evidence or argument showing that something is true. The concept of proof tends to be used in law, so it is a convenient comparison. Proof is also used in science, which I have previously made references to. Having gone to great lengths to define proof, why do you find it difficult now?
It's great that you dismiss my viewpoint as narrow minded without at any point defending, explaining or making any effort to respond to my questions. By dismissing any arguments that do not suit you rather than responding to them, you are demonstrating that you are in fact the one who is being narrow minded, and by refusing to defend your own points you are demonstrating that you really don't understand how debates work.
Can you even answer the question, how how does your quoting Socratese support your argument? It should be a simple question since you put it forward as an argument. Why did you select that argument to support the argument that there is evidence of God's existence?
You're equating a social norm of law to a faith based truth of religion? My claim of you being narrow minded and not supporting your claim by approaching your argument phenomenologically but by using your limited viewpoint, is not entertaining a thought to argue it, you're simply dismissing it. Since you or any one else arguing this useless argument are incapable of epoche and using the Phenomenoligal approach, your argument is only valid to you and other supporters of your unsubstantiated claims.
The nature of proof is that it doesn't matter who it is "according to." If someone is seen committing a crime, the witness is proof that they did it. If there fingerprints are found at the scene, that is proof. If they have whatever was stolen, or the murder weapon when they are arrested, that is still more proof. Proof is something that is objectively there. It is not an opinion, it is not a subjective concept.
I understand the nature if quotes, but you are not substantiating how they support the existence of evidence of God's existence. If you have arguments to support them, then you are condensing your arguments too much. You still haven't explained your last point calling my criticism of your quote narrow minded. How was I being narrow minded and do you have some way to explain how the assumed knowledge of the existence of God equates to a Socratese saying that the only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing?
I try to explain, I really do. Maybe I'm bad at explaining or maybe not, but either you're not grasping ques or I may be condensing my points too much. This is moot anyway, the non believers won't accept the believers' form of proof as it's not proof in their perception. Which is true to non believers, but I can entertain both sides*, I am neither a believer or non believer personally, but I try to point out that this argument is subjective and neither side is right or wrong according to them.
I don't have any problem with the idea that a creator may have put the big bang in motion, but I also don't discount that it could have been a cosmic accident. I also can't give a full explanation as I have not spent years studying the subject. I could give basic info, but I will admit I am not an expert.
As to organization, which part? The planets being on a plane (more or less), the formation of the Earth, the human body the food chain? There are a lot of things that are organized that you could be asking for.
I have met scientists who worked at Sudbury Neutrino. Some were religious, some were not. I don't have any argument with people who believe in God. I do take issue with the claim that there is proof. I don't know if God exists or not, but I have yet to see proof, and much of the things that are presented as proof demand that I either ignore more plausible explanations, or ignore logic altogether.
i would like you to explain the big bang theory, was that just an accident to you? a mere coincidence? how can you explain how everything is so organized? the truth is, the more scientists indulge themselves into their research, they actually become more religious, because they see how everything is so complex and organized.
Could you attempt to explain where my viewpoint was too narrow? How does the assumption that God exists equate to the concept that you know nothing? Instead of offering vague insults and quoting intellectuals, how about making a point and actually explaining it?
Your perception and how you translate that quote is subjective but it doesn't matter, anyone from any aspect can use that quote because it doesn't belong to any one viewpoint.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Don't be so narrow minded to only your point of view.
That quote would support the agnostic view more than the religious one. Agnostics do not believe in God, nor disbelieve. They feel that we don't know one way or the other. Religious people believe that they know there is a God, atheists believe that they know that there is not.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing".
Every religion had a creation story. Quoting one does not provide proof of it being true.
Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, GOD created the heaven and the earth"
How does that demonstrate God exists?
Would you say the mother that kills her children because God told her to has proof that she was right in doing so because she heard his voice? Because that is where your argument leads
this argument is getting old, and has been flawed from the start.dave is right, we dont have the kimd of proof that they(athiests,scientisrs)can accept, so it really is based upon our faith, which, accordingly, is based off the premise of no proof, so you keep arguing with them about "proof" and it clearly shows your ignorance, because no religiom is based off evidence, you are giving religion a bad name here
You keep saying their faith is their proof, but faith is not a form of proof. Faith is belief in the absence of proof. If there was proof, faith is not needed because there is certainty.
You equate personal belief with proof and fail every time to address the fact that personal faith does not demonstrate any form of proof.
You have consistently ignored all questions addressed to you and elected not to respond when your assertions are criticized as being false.
People believe in God without proof,
People have faith in their beliefs whether they are accepted or not,
People are willing to subject themselves to willful ignorance if it suits their beliefs.
It is easy to string together a logical argument, but your arguments make leaps that are irrational. People are perfectly capable of believing lies. That does not make those lies truth. That doesn't mean religion is a lie, but belief does not confer legitimacy on it.
Finally, you are again putting the burden of proof on those saying that such proof does not exist. An analogy would be to claim, in a trial, that you have evidence that someone committed murder. You won't show the evidence and, since the defense cannot prove that the evidence exists, the accused must be found guilty. You are arguing that until someone finds proof that there is no proof to find, you must be right. That is flawed logic and lazy debating.
If you will agree that their beliefs are true you must agree that God does exists to the believers, and given the presumption God does exist to the believers, to argue of God's existence is laughable.
People believe in God's existence without your interpretation of proof.
People have faith in their beliefs with or without your acceptance.
God must exist to believers.
To you God does not exist, this is your claim which you have not proven, to believers God exists and their proof is their faith.
Proof; something that induces certainty or establishes validity. (Webster-Merriam)
If your generalizations apply on a global scale encompassing over 7 billion individuals than I must be overstepping my boundary. But if that is not the case than your viewpoint is as subjective as mine.
@epoche you are making a straw-man argument. No one is saying you have to change your believe simply because there is no proof for it. But, the argument is, that there is no objective proof for God. No one is claiming that the believe in God is, in itself wrong. You are the only one trying to extract that argument out of this debate. You are attacking an argument that isn't being made by anyone. That is the definition of the straw man fallacy.
That whole birth argument is nonsense.
We know people are born from mothers because no one has ever witnessed the spontaneous creating of a human being. We have also plenty of evidence that people are born from their mothers. So it's another fallacy you are committing known as an argument of false analogy.
The definitions are limited by interpretation, I could go over each and every one and argue how it could apply, even in the slightest degree to their beliefs. Do you need proof that your mother is real or evidence of her existence or birth? No, you accept that as a truth based on universal sense perceptions and instinct from birth which follows into habits shaping your individual perceptions into your subject reality.
I am not saying their beliefs are false to them, I am saying belief is not proof. If it were, there would be no need for science because we could simply believe we have superluminal flight and travel to nearby stars. You keep equating personal belief with objective proof and, as many false beliefs in the past have demonstrated, believing something does not make it real. The world is round, and orbits the sun. Religion fought those thoughts for hundreds of years because they contradict what God said in the Bible. Now they are accepted by the church.
And you still haven't answered my question. Which of those definitions helps your arguments? You keep quoting reputable sources, but they don't seem to support your case.
Can anyone answer my question? Who here will say that believers' beliefs are false to them?
@psychdave and epoche
While sensory perception is a means of gathering evidence in the scientific sense, these events need to be repeatable and can't be personal to be considered proof. In other words, you can't be the only one to have experienced the event in order for something to be considered objective proof.
Hallucinations are real to the person experiencing them, but would hardly be considered objective proof of truth to anyone other than the person experiencing. If you want to contend that someone hearing or seeing God is evidence enough to ascribe the value of proof to this type of evidence, then you have equal proof of God as someone tripping acid and thinking they heard the voice of the universe, equal to a schizophrenic hearing voices and believing them to be true. It makes your beliefs equal in truth to those.
You conclude that believers' beliefs are not true to them?
Why are you quoting dictionaries again? Which definition in this lost opens the door to some kind of evidence of God's existence?
Further, shifting the burden of proof to people who doubt the existence of God is essentially asking them to proof that the proof does not exist. That is a lazy and dishonest way to debate since the evidence is that there is no proof. You are claiming that proof exists, but cannot provide it. By your logic, if I claim to be God incarnate, the burden of proof lies with you to disprove it because, since I believe, that truth is already established for me. If I believe the moon is actually made of a giant space potato, the burden of proof lies with you to disprove it. When making a claim that something is so, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. You claim there is proof, so show this proof.
Proof is based on perspective.
Merriam - Webster defines proof as;
a. the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or fact.
b. the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
3. something that induces certainty or establishes validity
Oxford defines proof as;
1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
1.2 The action or process of establishing the truth of a statement.
MacMillan defines proof as;
1. Information or evidence that shows that something is definitely true or definitely exists.
Cambridge defines proof as;
1. A fact or piece of information that shows that something exists or is true.
Legal definition of proof is;
The establishment of fact by the use of evidence. Anything that can make a person believe that a fact or proposition is true or false. it is distinguishable from evidence in that proof is a broad term comprehending everything that may be adducted in a trial, whereas evidence is a narrow term describing certain types of proof that can be admitted at trial.
I just realized something, believers believe their religious truths to be true. The truth is already established for them, they need no proof. However, non believers believe something to be true or false yet are unable to prove their claim. By their own defintions of proof, for the burden of proof is on them they must prove or disprove their claim.
There is technically no 'proof' of anything. So debating that specifically is useless.
Again you're making an argument from incredulity. When you claim that intelligent design is the only alternative to current, unproven theories of natural, that is the definition of an argument of incredulity.
Again, this is not an argument about whether or not there is evidence for God. It's about proof. Proof is a measure of objective certainty. No evidence for God comes to the level of certainty that would constitute proof... At least none of the evidence you have described.
Fair points. Sensory perception is an individual experience that let's us learn about the nature of the world around us based on what our senses perceive.
So for this to be proof of God's existence, when did you see God? Hearing God's voice would also be a valid sensory perception of God, so when did God last speak to you? Describing the last time you touched God would work as well. I'm not going to deal with smell or taste because those seem like improbable senses to perceive God with, but if you have input based on them feel free to explain it.
While it is true that sensory perception is an individual experience, for that to be offered as proof you have to have perceived God with one of your 5 senses. Without that, all you are arguing is that if someone HAD seen God it would be proof, but I haven't. If I had seen a leprechaun, that would be proof that they exist, but I haven't.
Sense perceptions allow one to induct scientific knowledge, without sense perception of the particulars one cannot induct universal scientific knowledge. Sense perception of the particulars to an individual differ in their non universal nature, for we have different experiences. But we use sense perceptions of particulars to induct universal truths or scientific knowledge. Hence, one of the methods to induct knowledge is through sense perceptions.
Epoche, sense perception would be something you see, or hear, or touch. Unless you have seen God, heard God or touched God, you have not perceived God with your senses, therefore you have still failed to present proof. You have, either intentionally or unintentionally, misinterpreted the word perception. Unless you have experienced God with one of your senses, please do not claim support of the works of great philosophers while misusing their works.
There is ample scientific evidence of something from nothing, just not on the scale of universal creation.
With regards to your argument that humans have historically been religious, therefore there must have been a divine inspiration, religion has always been how humans explained things they didn't understand. What makes thunder? A God with a hammer. Why did the ground move? The gods are angry with is. Fear drove us to assign causes we could understand to phenomenon we could not. As we learned more about the world around us, the need for divine causes receded more and more. Arguing against evolution now is the same battle against science that religion has been fighting since arresting heretics for saying that the Earth revolves around the sun. When confronted with scientific evidence that contradicts religious teachings, the church chooses dogma.
You could potentially make an argument that got set off the big bang, but to claim that intelligent design has more supporting evidence than any other explanation is simply not true. Theories about the big bang made testable predictions, which have been shown to be accurate (universal background noise for example).
As to the Intelligent Design argument itself, when you say intelligent design, do you mean young earth creationism, guided evolution or simply God as the cause of the Big Bang? Which type of intelligent design you are saying has the most support changes how much evidence there is for the theory. We can use natural law to model the creation of the universe to a fraction of a second after the big bang. From that point on there is no need for supernatural intervention for the forming of the universe.
The debate is over the proof of God's existence. Science is missing a necessary component to the creation of something from nothing (i.e. The Universe). All the theories out there have no scientific evidence for or against them, since it is too hard to find, and these include Intelligent Design. However, Intelligent Design does have historical evidence, which makes it a likely solution to the creation conundrum. If humanity was almost 100% religious for thousands of years, it is likely something inspired belief in the divine.
If there is proof that something divine happened in human history, and accounts which were inspired by this divinity claim it created tge Universe. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that Intelligent Design is responsible for the Universe. Whuch means there is a God.
If you are looking for undeniable proof, i can't give it to you, that would have to come from God . But i can show you where the evidence leads, and that God is the most likely and logical scenario.
According to Aristotle, there are four major ways to induct knowledge.
1. Particular truths from perception to universal truths
2. Universal truths to particular knowledge (syllogism, 2 true premises equal a 3rd truth)
3. Induction through sense perceptions
4. Induction through rational/generalizations.
Nether is right or wrong but the one relational fact remains perceptions are a part of truth. Please refrain from arguing against the greatest philosopher's teachings.
Or the Phenomenological method.
Correction: the argument isn't whether or not there is evidence for God, but rather whether or not the is proof.
I messed that all up in the biblical truths argument....
You claim that science not having proof for a natural origin story, that this is somehow proof for the necessity of God. The most you can say is that none of the scientific theories have enough evidence so they could be said to be proven. However, that is in no way evidence for an alternative theory.
Your are making an argument of incredulity if you imply that God is the only alternative theory.
Then you make a bunch of arguments about the Bible. I'm gonna address them in kind of a blanket argument.
The biblical stories that include historical truths, only proves that historical facts were included in the Bible. It's doesn't speak to the truth of the text as a whole. It's an error in logic because the statement "this is sufficient to prove God exists" doesn't necessarily follow from the premise "there are some historical facts in the bible". So at the very least this argument is logically unsound. The debate here is whether or not there is a evidence for God, but rather proof. That places the absolute burden on the side arguing pro. I don't think you want to argue that anyway since you'll have some troublesome contradictions.
The moral nihilism argument.
It's an argument I would totally make. Moral objectivity is not the only viable option. I don't see any reason why moral nihilism isn't a functional alternative theory to moral objectivism.
While I do agree that perspective hampers objective interactions with reality, to outright reject reality in favor of embracing your self contained beliefs is self defeating. Reality exists no matter what perceptual buffer and biases one might have. If you walk into traffic with the belief that you are safe you are in no less danger than if you walk into traffic with no certainty of your safety. Belief does not confer validity to a statement.
You are talking about subjective truths, the topic is objective proof. Are you mentally incapable of grasping that reality exists whether you believe in it or not? Gravity doesn't depend on your faith, it simply is. Momentum impacts the believer and skeptic alike. We can say that these things are true because there is proof that they are true. We are not discussing subjective belief. We are discussing proof.
The definition of proof does not allow belief to be true. In one of the 5 possible definitions you quoted previously, proof could be given in the form of theological, philosophical or logical arguments since they induce certainty or confer validity. Belief obviously does not confer validity since people with schizophrenia believe many things that are not valid,and belief does not confer certainty. You can have a belief that you are not certain of. I believe that you are male. Based on your statements, that is likely, but since you could have lied it is not certain. Certainty confers belief, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
You seem to have lost track of what this debate is about again. We are not debating which religion, if any, is true. Nor does atheist views of ancient Greek religious practices offer anything relevant. We are debating the existence of proof. Opinions about gender have no bearing on the existence of evidence , or lack thereof, of a deity. While there are things from my childhood I feel strongly about, I do kit confuse those feelings with proof. A strong attachment to the joy of finding a dollar the tooth fairy left would not give evidence that the tooth fairy is real, so how is that relevant to the current discussion?
There are universal truths, I agree, yet one's perspective lays granular differences in the their reality. Even in the extreme where people still believe and practice Ancient Greek religion (Hellenism), to that culture that is the true religion, which even an atheist may detest for no reason other than the ancient religions practiced sacrifices. For those religions it was right in their beliefs, it was true, it was real, it was a tradition. Just like thanksgiving day, or Christmas. I promise you there is something about your childhood that you feel strongly about even to this day, it's a part of your reality. Yes there are universal truths to induct, but their are also parts of your reality that differ from my own. To me I might believe women are crazy and detestable at times, you might think otherwise, there is one example. Those are examples of two subjective truths coming to an equalibrium of one universal fact, we need women to procreate. Regardless if I enjoy the company of women or not I must procreate, hypothetical for arguments sake, you enjoy women and you procreate. Our truths are different but we learn to cope with how our realities perceive the world around us.
Are you mentally incapable of grasping the very nature of belief? The very definition of proof allows their belief to be true according to their perspective, just like other defintions of proof allow you to have your truth according to your perspective. Two truths can apply to two different people, yes one may be more macro than the other but it does not disqualify the other truth being real to the believers.
I didn't have time to read the whole debate, but I'm sure it came up.
Many atheists point to suffering in the world and claim it is proof a benevolent God doesn't exist. However, God created the Universe. That means God providedlife itself. It is like the difference between a gift, and stealing. Since God gave us life, it is not morally wrong to take it, because without him we would not have the life we have. This is different from a person taking life, because it was not theirs to take. God even used his power to make heaven.
The Universe is not perfect because then it would be heaven. God made us to have free will, so he cant stop us making good or bad choices, otherwise we'd be robots.
So God isn't even making death calls the way you might percieve him to be. But to conclude, God can let bad things happen because he made all the good things happen, and on the grand scale, bad things are the absence of good things.
A couple of points. First, the topic is proof, or faith. You seem to have equates the two and you seem to feel that perception is reality. That is simply not true. Having belief in something does not offer any proof that your belief is accurate. You could believe that the world is flat, that the sun revolves around it, or that you are a penguin. You can believe whatever you want, but that belief in no way confers proof onto the object of your belief.
Second, I don't feel that you are in any position to criticize a partial quote as you have repeatedly responded with semantic arguments that do not address the arguments you are trying to refute, or you simply ignore the arguments in favor of stating that there is more than one definition of proof.
Finally, by expressing that there is no verifiable evidence of the existence of God, I am in no way violating anyone's human rights. People are free to believe as they wish, but if they wish to say that there is proof, there had best be some proof to back up the statement. I am not imprisoning anyone, killing anyone, or even inconveniencing anyone based on their religion. I am starting that I have never seen any proof of the existence of God, and that, despite many comments here, there has yet to be presented any quantifiable evidence.
There is a time in a debate when semantic arguments, strawman statements and vague philosophical comments must give way to actual arguments. There has been no talk of forcing religious people to not believe in God other than by you in order to set up your arguments. You claim that I took your comment out of context. The full sentence was
"You are right, there is no proof in a scientific sense, there is however believers' faith which is stronger than proof to them."
How do you equivocate that sentence to turn it into an argument for the existence of proof? My intention was not to mislead, it was to remind you that you had already agreed that there is no proof. This means that your whole argument rests on the admission of faith as proof. Faith is not admissible in a court of law and it is not admissible in a scientific article.
My whole arguement was deleted because the system logged me out, so this is a condensed version. No proof for God? Bitch please, you need him. He's needed to create the universe, which is something scientists can't explain with any theory which has any proof, just like God from a scientific percpective. Basically, all the theories about how the universe was created have no scientific proof, they are simply imaginative discussion. This include God. However, the theory of God has evidence outside of science which boosts its likelihood in tge creation conundrum. The bible is historically accurate, Sodom and Gomorrah were found in India, the ark might be on a mountaintop in Tukey. And historical facts check out in the texts. For thousands of years, Atheism hardly existed. It follows that something inspired belief in the divine. Then there is the moral case. Without God, you can't logically advocate a universal koral code, because morality could fluctuate depending on who was able to enforce it. Without God, only Moral Nihilism is logical, and i doubt you are willing to accept that.
If you interpret me as arguing sentiments than so be it, my only point is as much as you want to, you cannot impose your beliefs onto other people. No matter the validity to you, you must respect that their beliefs are true to them, regardless of your personal interjections. You know Atheism is a religion? Are you all aware some of you want to violate basic universal human rights to deny people of their beliefs when implying their deity is false?
When one intends reads a book, they shouldn't be content with the preface only. Yes in order to appease both sides that I'd true, yet you omitted the remaining sentiment. Yes it is true to you that there is no proof of God, not to believers though, to believers their belief is true. One would assume people using this app would employ a good sense of reading comprehension.
It seems that you object more to the semantics of the topic than the topic itself. You previously explicitly said that there is no proof, just a sense of proof called faith. In that statement you have conceded the debate.
Please see definitions of proof enclosed, your definition is not the only one.
No one is claiming that you have to force people to believe anything. You're making a straw-man argument. What I'm saying is that proof is a high certainty value for evidence, that faith and personal experiences don't meet that level certainty. Therefore there is no proof for God. I'm not saying that there isn't any evidence or even a feeling of certainty for one's believe in God. However, proof is an objective measure of certainty that no evidence for God is able to rise to.
I do not believe that everyone who has seen a ghost is lying, but I also haven't seen any scientific evidence showing that they are real. People throughout history have experienced supernatural events, whether ghosts, divine visits, alien abduction or any one of many other examples. Some are more plausible than others (for example I don't believe that the Greek gods got women pregnant) but without having experienced the events, or at least without objective evidence of what happened, I also can't discount them.
i can see as how something you havent come into direct contact with wouldnt substantiate as proof to you. but do the accounts of tons and tons of people across the world justify something to you? surely you dont think thier all lying or seeing things?
Your interpretations are not your neighbors', your "filter", is not your neighbors'. Let's agree that 99.99% of the world's population agreed with your premise.
Would you impose yours, and the rest of the world's belief on the remaining 0.01% who disagrees? Think about that question.
To simply the argument below:
All proof is evidence, but not all evidence is proof.
Proof is subjective argument:
isn't proof an intrinsically objective value statement though? It is used as a measurement of certainty. Evidence is proof if and only if it is of a high enough standard. How high is that standard? I think that is debatable, however, it has to be at least high enough as to not make the concept of the word meaningless. Ascribing faith alone as a standard of evidence to constitute "proof" of an idea is self defeating.
Believe as proof continued :
Believing something that is informed by evidence doesn't mean you have proof of that believe. It simply means you have evidence for it. Not all evidence rises to the standard to be considered proof. You wouldn't want to make the argument that believing in unicorns because you think you saw one once in the woods is the same value you would ascribe to the evidence for gravity, would you?
subjective filters argument:
The argument that evidence is filtered through subjective believe systems is true, but it has nothing to do with the definition of the word, but rather how we deal with information to inform our believes. You described the epistemological use of evidence, not a argument of the utility of proof. You have described that we choose to ignore evidence based on bias, however this argument fails to provide evidence that subjective believe systems objectively inform us of the certainty value of a given piece of evidence.
But no one is working from the same starting point. Are you incapable of grasping the notion different people prescribe to different sense perceptions, experiences, traditions, "lens" of their world, beliefs, culture, language, etc. No two people are identical, on a macro scale the general definitions may apply, on a micro scale the unorthodox defintions may apply. I'm beginning to think this is more of a question of morality rather than establishing truth. Is it really this difficult to conceive that some people's definition of proof, as applied to their beliefs are true to them?
You are the only one trying to pick a definition to use. Everyone else is working with the same functional definition that a proof is some form of evidence. Furthermore, defining the terms used is not subjective. it makes it so that everyone is working from the same starting point. If we are to debate something, everyone has to agree what we are debating or there can be no meaningful discussion.
Your statement is false. If you believe you can fly by flapping your arms, it is not a subjective argument to say that you cannot. If you believe that gravity does not influence you, again I can use objective facts to counter it. If your beliefs or notions contradict objective reality, it is not subjective to argue against them. One premise is true, the other is false.
For one to pick which definition of a word to apply to their interpretation, is that not subjective? Both sides will be subjective for all eternity on earth on a macro scale, that is the reality.
For one to argue another's perceived beliefs, notions, or experiences are false would be subjective. You must acknowledge your interjection is subjective than, and for one to try to interject a subjective point of view does not equate facts on it's own merit. For one to believe a thing is fact one must be provided a proof according to their beliefs, experiences and perceptions. Accept the notion both premises are true to each the believer and non believer, for that is the beauty or curse of human being, individualism or free will.
I didn't mean to imply that I agree that blind faith is a valid form of proof. I meant that, for the purposes of this debate, if one uses that definition it opens the door to theological arguments. I do not agree that belief confers proof to a concept, but the phrasing of the topic lets the debater decide which definition of proof they choose to use.
Also, I apologize for my lack of proof reading. The first sentence should have read "The only one of those 5 definitions..." Autocorrect changed it and I missed it before posting.
@psychdave & epoche
Even number 3 isn't too much of a problem. I think including faith as a justification for certainty is problematic to the utility of the word proof. It would mean there is "proof" of anything, if you just believe it hard enough. It makes proof an arbitrary standard of measuring knowledge. The word itself would loose all meaning. It would ascribe the same value of certainty for Christianity, 4+4=8, Hinduism, evolution, Judaism, gravity, Islam, thermodynamics, scientology, etc...
The only argument left then is whether or not personal experiences are of a high enough standard to be considered evidence. Again, I propose that such a definition makes the word proof meaningless since it would loose utility. It means that any hallucination would be considered proof of an idea. So a schizophrenic who acts on the voices in his/her head is acting under the same level of objective certainty as gravity. I would argue that this again makes the word meaningless.
The one lyrics of those 5 definitions that could be used to open the door to theological arguments is 3. Something that induces certainty or establishes validity since non-scientific arguments can induce certainty. The others all include the words evidence, testing, or principles of reasoning, which do not admit faith as valid arguments.
a :the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b :the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
3. something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4 archaic :the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially :unyielding hardness
5 :evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
"proof" is not limited by one definition.
proof - evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement. What definition would confuse the topic?
I have never had a paranormal experience, so I can't say that this argument is persuasive to me, but I can see the logical argument and, especially if you have had such an experience, it would demonstrate an existence after death, which would support the existence of God, the soul, etc.
interesting ideal. since its not an argument of religion vs science you state, its merely stating whether there is proof that god exists. since your arguing on those grounds, the only proof you will believe is as
i say yes. i have come in contact with ghosts before, and they are very much real, as if you ask anyone you know if they have had paranormal experiences, then im sure someone will tell you a story. go to a haunted place, do some basic research online, there is plenty of witness accounts, stating thier all false would be a too strong of an assumption.
"Proof" has more than one meaning, did you bother to look at the definition?
The topic isn't asking to argue theology with science, it is asking if there is evidence of God. The topic God exists would plunge into exactly the sort of back and forth you are describing, but this topic is about proof. It is a yes or no question. It is no different than if one asked of there was proof of continental drift. We can't see it or touch it, so we rely on other evidence. The question is, does that evidence exist. The topic explicitly asks for objective proof of the existence of a deity. Not the philosophical view on God or societal implications of God.
If you have proof, vote yes and share it as a comment. If you do not have proof, even if you have faith in God, you are being dishonest to vote yes.
One can sit here and entertain a fruitless argument, but what is the point? I can keep articulating social, theological, and philosophical approaches but some lack the capacity of objectivity. I'm at least attributing truth to both parties, nether of which I prescribe to by the way. Both sides are true to their own biases, it's moot.
There is no point, you can't argue Theology beliefs with scientific facts, that would be subjective and ignorant for all parties.
no, i am stating that this argument shouldnt be here in this first place. i am not trying to argue, and i never made this argument. i am trying to get people AWAY from this argument, as it is pointless, for reasons i already stated.
Thanks Dave, that's exactly my point. Everyone who has disagreed and argued has said that there is no proof, but the proof doesn't matter. So my question for all of those people is why do you disagree with the claim if you agreed with it in your statement.
You appear to be missing the point. The topics whether or not there IS proof of God's existence, not whether that proof is necessary, or whether that proof would be relevant. You are well within your rights to say that you don't require proof to believe in God, and I would never try to take that belief away from you. But you are in a debate about the existence of proof that God exists. To say that you don't need proof, or that belief in God was never meant to be based on proof and is based solely on faith is to concede that there is no proof. Whether you need proof to believe is irrelevant. If you want to argue whether or not proof is necessary for faith, feel free to make that topic and we can debate there, but in your own statements you have conceded that you have no proof and base your belief on faith which, while absolutely fine for a personal belief, concedes the debate.
i couldnt agree more
the topic of religion was never meant to be based on proof, and it was never meant to be debated for factual evidence, for it is solely based on faith, and the strength of your faith residing in the fact of your upbringing, background, and your individual goals and beliefs. the fact of religiom stems from personal will and acceptence. so, it is either you believe or you dont, and it can go no further than that. asking for proof on such matters is completely irrelevant.
I'm not one to tell a believer their beliefs are false, if something is not false it must be true, at least for the most part. Theology is a subject that can't be measured in scientific ways, but that fact does not disprove the existence of "God". I would say non believers validate scientifically and believers validate through faith, so yes you are correct in pointing out scientifically one cannot prove existence of "God"; yet the word proof yields more meanings than just scientific data.
Saying that faith is stronger than proof dies not change the fact that the topic is about proof, not faith. If the topic was "are there people with faith that God is real" the answer would be yes. As you have admitted that there is no proof, the answer is no.
You are absolutely right, there is no proof in a scientific sense, there is however believers' faith which is stronger than proof for them. Just word play, I know but in order to try to be objective one must discard their individual biases, something I don't think is humanly possible.
@epoche proof is a matter of objective, empirical facts, or logical proofs. There is no such proof for religion.
I'm not religious at all, but my degree plan requires a couple courses in world religion. So my background is neutral, I'm merely pointing out that either way the argument goes it's going to be subjective.
the fact of the matter is that religion cannot be debated as other arguments. you are right, it is not a factual premise. it is based off a strong commitment of faith. therefore, religion is wholly based off your upbringing, your ideals and influences, and the basic foundation and strong will of your faith. so, the point here is everyone is different, and whether yout faith is strong enough to believe in a higher power is based wholly off what i just stated
There is no "proof" for you, however there is a sense of "proof" if you will, for believers which is called faith.
And that right there is the problem. The topic is about proof. Not faith, not belief, not opinion, and not ideologies. Is there proof that God exists? If so, it has not been presented. To make an objective evaluation of something, it is not necessary to be a believer, as that does not remove your biases, it replaces them with new ones. If one accepts that the believer is right in all of their beliefs, you are no longer being objective.
As an example, look at evolution. There are many forms of evidence substantiating evolution, and religious beliefs offering an alternative. To evaluate the proof of intelligent design, you do not need to embrace it and believe every part of it. This debate has happened many times and inevitably it ends in religious people asserting their beliefs as facts, no matter what evidence is presented.
In order to make an objective evaluation you would need to be educated on the matter. One would need to be fully aware of their biases, suspend them, be empathetic, while maintain avoiding biases. In order to learn about something, in this case a religion, you would need to embrace the religion as a believer would. You would have to respect the believers' beliefs, you would have to accept the notion of the believer is always right about his/her beliefs. You would have to avoid derogatory, biased, or prejudicial language and ques, avoid passing judgement, you cannot question truthfulness or accuracy. You would need to be empathetic, basically stand in the believers' shoes while making that evaluation, and most importantly believers must agree with your evaluation. This is called the Phenomenoligal approach of making an objective evaluation of an aspect about religion, yet can be applied to anything. You naturally have your own biases as you're human, you can be subjective if you choose but if so your evaluation is only credible from your perspective. Again I'm only describing that one should try to be as objective as they can, I personally don't believe it's possible but the best way is the way I described. When it comes to scientific research proof is much easier to aquire, when it comes to theology it's primarily based on faith.
I am not trying to undermine faith, I am pointing out that faith is not a form of evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of proof, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But whether or not you believe in something doesn't make it true or untrue. You can believe your husband is coming back from war, but no matter how much faith you have you can't influence what actually happens. No one sends their loved one off to war believing they won't come back.
you seem to be undermining faith. faith is having complete and utter devotion in something thats not proven to exist. yes, there is no exact proof, but thats what faith is all about. its something every being should have with someone, whether it be god, a husband coming back from war, or someone you love surviving a tragic accident.
While I respect anyone's right to believe whatever they want, this is a flawed argument. By this logic, unicorns and Pixies are real because there are people who believe in them and no one can prove that they do not exist. A lack of evidence does not prove something doesn't exist, but neither does belief conference existence. Saying "God exists to those who believe" sounds good, but that is merely perception, not reality. People with schizophrenia believe in things that are not real to the rest of us, but that doesn't provide proof that those things are real.
I don't know one way or the other if God exists, and I won't pretend to have knowledge I don't, but faith is not a form of proof, it is a belief in the absence of proof. The topic is not "Is God real" (though that topic does exist elsewhere) . The topic is there is proof of God, which belief does not provide.
Each individual has his/her own life experiences, which filter the incoming and and outgoing information with the hippocampus as the "middleman". Aside from your family traditions, ethnic background, culture, religion, political association, economic status, gender, morality, values, and so on; each individuals perspective starts shaping from first knowledge. First basic knowledge is formed at an early age prior to being capable of fully aware conciousness, this is derived from senses, which form instincts, than habits which people shape into moral habits. Each individual has a different perspective based on many reasons. A belief is the only requirement for a believer, they feel enlightened with Faith. Non believers on the other hand need accurate historical data which can be measured and defined in scientific ways. God is real to believers, for one to claim otherwise is trying to change one's belief. God is not real to non believers and they should be content with that, for no one can prove scientifically the existence and no one can disprove God's existence in one's beliefs.
think Dave said it 100% accurately tbh
The believers' only proof is faith, the non believers' only proof of non existence is no historical tangible data. God exists and is real to believers, God does not exist to non believers. God exists to some, and not all, but he does exist in believers' reality, so one cannot claim God isn't real, that would be subjective.
This is the problem with debating the existence of God. Those who do not believe demand proof, and there is no credible proof of God's existence that I have ever seen. Those who believe in God state their beliefs as facts, and refuse to be swayed by logic or present any arguments that further their case beyond "Because God said so." Communication breaks down when two opposing viewpoints are using completely different, mutuality exclusive frameworks.
Debateer, if God doesn't need a creator then why does anything else?
Additionally, it is not fact that god is god and he doesn't need a creator. Fact requires some kind of proof and there is no proof that God exists. If there is please explain the proof.
God is God.. no one created God.. that's fact!! if someone ceeated God.. that's not God.. but that's faker which is not alive.. they have mouth but can't talking.. they have ear but can't hearing.. they have eye but can't see.. they have nose but they can't breathing.. and etc..
People are saying "it couldn't of created itself. So it must have a creator". Who says it has to be a creator?
AdamChase, if everything must have a creator then who created this god?
Then who created things like trees, humans, animals in the first place. Like, they can't just exist just like the that. Ex: The robots are created by human. WE ARE THE CREATOR OF ROBOTS, AND OTHER STUFF. We should have a creator who created us.
By your argument there is no God because the world is not at peace. There are conflicts all over the world (middle east, Ukraine) and disasters happen. Look at the bombings I'm Yemen today that killed over 100 people. Where was God's protection? I don't know that there is no God, but I have yet to see evidence that indicates that there is.
proof ?? you want proof that God is Exist ?? let me tell you Ladies and Gentleman.. there are so many proof that God is Exist!! why this world can live in peace ?? because God is protect us.. if God don't exist, this world will full of disaster.. just see in the future, where the doomsday is coming..
How would they have any idea of an expanding universe in that period of time? I don't find guessing such a thing very probable in those days.
However, I know this is a faith thing, it's open to interpretation. If there was an obvious hard proof, we wouldn't call it faith.
That doesn't prove anything. That merely shows that people had the idea of the expanding universe, if that is even what that verse was meant to say. That statement can be taken as people make more discoveries about the universe all of the time and therefore make the universe seem bigger due to the newly discovered possibilities. That statement could mean many different things.
"...We have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it.... " (Surah 51:47).
This is from Qur'an, which was written 1400 years ago. (We, muslims believe that the Qur'an was verbally revealed by Allah to prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel) So, Qur'an contains the "expanding universe" as a scientific observation written into its texts. Think about it... It was actually discovered in 1929.
What proof is there?