The Ultimate Religion Discussion Thred

[The Alma Mater]

Perhaps, but this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The phrase "you can't prove a negative" has to do with empirical claims. The claim "proving a negative is not possible" is NOT an empirical claim. It belongs to the realm of logic, and thus is outside of the context of "you can't prove a negative".

There is no text between those two lines:

---

---

Now, by looking between those two lines and seeing that there is no text, you have just empirically proved, to yourself, the claim I made at the beginning of this post.

I can read between the lines.

[Fyorgynn]

The proof that God exists lies in the faith a believer has, without that He doesn't exist. Much the same as love. Without the faith that love actually exists, it doesn't.

While I think that most of us will agree with you about the love part, no theist is going to agree that God ceases to exist if people don't believe in that God. Also, in the sense that you are using "proof", it wouldn't fit with the colloquial definition that people tend to use, which is more similar to "proof" as it's used in argumentation. You seem to be using it in the testimonial sense, which is likely only to appeal to the spiritual.

Though you said the thread was too complicated, can I at least ask that you watch the associated video? The point it makes about subjectivity is particularly important for posters in internet forums where morality and theology come up.

I did watch the video, at least as long as I could bear it. I simply did not buy into much that was being said. Perhaps the turn off was mostly the write up just beside it. Your description of it was hardly the description on the page. And I'm easily distracted.

I understand what you are saying about the average theists and how they would see what I'm saying. But my faith is based heavily in a hybrid of Christianity and the Gnostic Gospels, there are simply not an abundance of Gnostic theists to begin with, so I understand where your point is based. Not in the same realm mine is in a nut shell. Basically (though very simplified for discussion purposes), I believe that God is actually within each of us. If I have no faith in his existence, then no he does not exist for me. I have no control on whether He exists for others, nor does it matter to me in reality because it is my soul I determine the fate of, not someone else's.

I know what I know, and of course it is subjective. My knowledge is based on human experience, it can only be subjective. Life's knowledge isn't only about objective thought. Heaven help us if it was, what a boring black hole this would be.

[Fabricati Diem]

This is the burden of proof fallacy. The claim that "God exists" is ontologically positive, while the claim that he does not is negative. The burden of proof is always on those making the positive claim, as proving a negative claim is impossible. Until you prove that your positive claim is true, it will be considered false, and rightly so - otherwise we would have to accept (almost) anything anyone said at face value, simply because we can't disprove it. After all, can you prove the Lucky the Leprechaun isn't standing behind you right now, using his magic powers to be invisible and immaterial?

Proving a negative is not impossible.

You are correct; in certain situations, it is possible to prove a negative statement. However, this depends entirely on the statement, and, in the case of the existence of a deity, it is impossible.
It goes something like this:

"There's a dragon in your garage."
"No there isn't."
"He's invisible."
"I parked my car in there."
"He's small."
"I went in and poked around everywhere. No dragon."
"He's immaterial."

And so on. It is impossible to prove that a god does not exist, because they can always be assigned attributes like the dragon. I apologize for the ambiguity in my statement. Hopefully this will clear it up.

[Meridiani Planum]

Yet we can prove negative empirical claims.

We can prove there is no elephant in a certain room. We can prove a certain ball is not red.

I was talking about universal claims. E.g., "There is no elephant in existence."

Yes, you can prove the contextual negatives you had mentioned.

[Risottia]

The phrase "proving a negative is impossible" is itself a negative statement, and if it were true, it would therefore be impossible to prove.

It could be true synthetically a priori, hence impossible to prove but still true. /Kantian nitpicking.

[Fyorgynn]

Prove god exists.

Right after you prove love exists.

Love can be empirically proven to exist, both as a feeling (EVIDENCE: people claim to have experienced a feeling called "love") and as a chemical state in the brain.

EDIT: Also, unless you're saying that your god is a feeling, then this is just a dodge.

I agree regarding the love/chemistry connection, and we are finding the prayer and deep meditation is also showing as a chemical state in the brain. The studies aren't perfect of course. But for my part and my belief, I think the studies are taking us in the right direction.

I'm not sure I understand your concept of love being empirically proven. Would you mind elaborating on that?

EDIT: Ooops forgot the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer

[Samgarcia]

Ok that’s it!

Religion bashing in every single thread. So many, many threads about Religion! I HAVE HAD IT!!!!!!!!

Have what?

That’s it. If you have any messages, topics, whatever you have to say about Religion, say it here!

What if we want specifics?

So ill start. All you christans who say god exist lets point out some stuff.

Bad grammar.

1. First there were molecules, they banded together and expanded in the Big bang spreading planets and stars everywhere. We know it’s true because it’s still going on.

the Big Bang is still going on? You mean expansion. The Bible says God stretches the heavens. Moot point.

2. First there were microscopic life forums, witch grew into fish, witch evolved into Reptiles, witch evolved into Dinosaurs, witch evolved (kinds) into mammals, witch evolved into us.

You can't prove this. Noone has seen evolution or creation in progress.

3. Prove god exists.

He talks to me all the time through His Word and His Spirit and He hears my prayers. Just because He doesnt do the same to you does not prove He does not exist

4. If he dose, why doesn’t he just say 'hi I’m god, I exists' to everyone.

He did. But people still reject Him. And He will judge us all one day *SHIVERS*.

[Fabricati Diem]

Prove god exists.

Right after you prove love exists.

Love can be empirically proven to exist, both as a feeling (EVIDENCE: people claim to have experienced a feeling called "love") and as a chemical state in the brain.

EDIT: Also, unless you're saying that your god is a feeling, then this is just a dodge.

I agree regarding the love/chemistry connection, and we are finding the prayer and deep meditation is also showing as a chemical state in the brain. The studies aren't perfect of course. But for my part and my belief, I think the studies are taking us in the right direction.

Definitely.

I'm not sure I understand your concept of love being empirically proven. Would you mind elaborating on that?

It has been shown to exist. As love is a feeling, and people have experienced a feeling they call "love", we can be reasonably sure that love exists. These people might, of course, be lying, but that's unlikely. To back up this initial assessment, we have evidence that love is a certain chemical state in the brain (Popular Science had an article about newly-made "love pills" last year; I'll look for the link).

First there were microscopic life forums, witch grew into fish, witch evolved into Reptiles, witch evolved into Dinosaurs, witch evolved (kinds) into mammals, witch evolved into us.

You can't prove this. Noone has seen evolution or creation in progress.

Yes, we have.

3. Prove god exists.

He talks to me all the time through His Word and His Spirit and He hears my prayers. Just because He doesnt do the same to you does not prove He does not exist

So you hear voices?

Just kidding. I'm not that much of an asshole. But really, this isn't evidence.

[Assassinistan]

There's too much shit in the world to be random. To say that God couldn't exist because something would have to have made God is rubbish. If God is not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent, then God is not God. It's a bit of a paradox or something, but there has to be something at the end of existence that is all-powerful and eternal. Something we can blame the universe on.
Also,stoop makeenn foon uv peepolls speelinn.

You seem to be requesting that Christians and Muslims stop existing. We cannot help the fact that our religions influence our very being in much the same way that your absense of religion, be it Atheism, Agnosticism, whatever, influences your life. It is a way of life.[/quote]
Ahem...Jews.
Edit: oh crap, I didn't mean Jews in a bad way. just some guy said that someone else wanted Christians and Muslims to stop existing, and I thought while youre at it, don't forget the Jews.
Double Edit: Goddamn it, I didn't mean it like that again. Why do I always say these stupid things that will land me in trouble. Let's just hope I don't make another faux pas...crazy Muslims.

[Fabricati Diem]

Yet we can prove negative empirical claims.

We can prove there is no elephant in a certain room. We can prove a certain ball is not red.

I was talking about universal claims. E.g., "There is no elephant in existence."

Yes, you can prove the contextual negatives you had mentioned.

Thanks, MP. I knew there had to be someone on NationStates that could sum this up better than I could.

Also, there's a difference between ontologically negative statements (statements which add zero knowledge to the sum total of what we know) and gramatically negative statements ("the ball is not red").

[Zarbli]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

[Samgarcia]

Ummm, no one has seen MACRO EVOLUTION. I saw the link. Creationists believe this(referring to the article), unless a few words were not read. No one has seen a fish change to an amphibian, just fish to fish, which the Bible allows.

[Fabricati Diem]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

Then it is no longer religious, and doesn't belong in this thread.

My answer, though, is "Probably, yes." Statistically speaking, there are too many other planets to assume that not a single other one has formed life. After all, it happened here.

[Gift-of-god]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

That statement is theoretically falsifiable, but not practically so.

[The Alma Mater]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

The answer then becomes "probably", especially if by life you do not mean little green man, but onecelled organisms.
But no certainty. Until it is found or we have checked every single planet in the universe of course - whatever happens first.

[Fabricati Diem]

Ummm, no one has seen MACRO EVOLUTION. I saw the link.

Then you saw macro-evolution.

Creationists believe this(referring to the article), unless a few words were not read. No one has seen a fish change to an amphibian

Directly? No, because it happened so long ago. But we have evidence that it occurred in the past, and nothing we know of makes this impossible.

[Zarbli]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

Then it is no longer religious, and doesn't belong in this thread.

Tell that to the Scientologists

[Fabricati Diem]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

Then it is no longer religious, and doesn't belong in this thread.

Tell that to the Scientologists

Just out of curiosity, are there any Scientologists here?

[The Alma Mater]

Just out of curiosity, are there any Scientologists here?

Some posters have claimed to be scientologists, yes.

[Samgarcia]

It was micro evolution. Micro evolution = fish to fish and Macro = fish to amphibians. There are no REAL missing links and the very existence of a fossil denotes a Flood.

EDITED: Saw link. Its outdated. One missing link fish-amphibian was proven to be a still-living DEEP SEA fish. The point is, a minor bone part does not prove evolution.

[Fabricati Diem]

It was micro evolution.

No. It was macro. You are simply strawmanning now, using definitions that no one else does and attacking them.
Macro-evolution is change from species to species. Micro-evolution is variation within a species. The examples I gave were change from species to species.

There are no REAL missing links

Yes, there are.

and the very existence of a fossil denotes a Flood.

[Fyorgynn]

Prove god exists.

Right after you prove love exists.

Love can be empirically proven to exist, both as a feeling (EVIDENCE: people claim to have experienced a feeling called "love") and as a chemical state in the brain.

EDIT: Also, unless you're saying that your god is a feeling, then this is just a dodge.

I agree regarding the love/chemistry connection, and we are finding the prayer and deep meditation is also showing as a chemical state in the brain. The studies aren't perfect of course. But for my part and my belief, I think the studies are taking us in the right direction.

Definitely.

I'm not sure I understand your concept of love being empirically proven. Would you mind elaborating on that?

It has been shown to exist. As love is a feeling, and people have experienced a feeling they call "love", we can be reasonably sure that love exists. These people might, of course, be lying, but that's unlikely. To back up this initial assessment, we have evidence that love is a certain chemical state in the brain (Popular Science had an article about newly-made "love pills" last year; I'll look for the link).

First there were microscopic life forums, witch grew into fish, witch evolved into Reptiles, witch evolved into Dinosaurs, witch evolved (kinds) into mammals, witch evolved into us.

You can't prove this. Noone has seen evolution or creation in progress.

Yes, we have.

3. Prove god exists.

He talks to me all the time through His Word and His Spirit and He hears my prayers. Just because He doesnt do the same to you does not prove He does not exist

So you hear voices?

Just kidding. I'm not that much of an asshole. But really, this isn't evidence.

I agree that love exists btw. And I don't think people are lying. Even when I was very young and could not fathom what love was and what people meant I didn't question that it was real or not, I simply knew I had not experienced it so did not understand it. After experiencing it, I have no question that it is real. I also have no question that it affects our brain chemistry. I would think for instance, anyone who has shed tears over love should understand this.

I feel the existence of God is much the same as the existence of love. The capacity is there, our knowledge regarding God is limited until we 'feel' it (or our chemistry kicks in). Much like our knowledge of the existence of love.

Very interesting about the "love-pill" idea.

[Manango]

What if we change the statement to something more science-like?

What if we change "Does god exist?" to "Does life in other planets exist?"

Then you need a definition of God that everyone agrees on, and Raptor Jesus knows that is not possible. Damn, just try reading up on theology and metaphysics and it becomes obvious everyone is talking about different shit.

[Fabricati Diem]

I feel the existence of God is much the same as the existence of love. The capacity is there, our knowledge regarding God is limited until we 'feel' it (or our chemistry kicks in). Much like our knowledge of the existence of love.

No. Even if we have never ourselves experienced love, the empirical evidence is there if we care to look: we can take a brain scan and see the chemical state change in accordance with the feeling.
However, your comparison to your experience with a god is not evidence of that god's existence; it is simply evidence that you believed that you were communing with a god, and that this caused a certain feeling in you.
Feelings are only evidence for feelings, not the things that they are directed towards.

Very interesting about the "love-pill" idea.

Yeah, it is - it was actually really frikkin' awesome, but I can't find the article yet. :/

[Samgarcia]

But it makes sense, fossils require a catastrophe to form.
In the Bible, there are kinds, not species. The word kind is wider than species. So God may classify a dog with a wolf or coyote but never a cat. So when I mean macro, thats what I meant.