Prove God herewith

[stemelbow]

I spotted this on Dan Peterson's blog

Quote

“The prolific eighteenth-century Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, was also a deeply religious man.  He was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and one day, the famous French atheist Denis Diderot came to visit the academy, apparently on a mission to convert its members to atheism.

 

“Euler was told about the visitor, and believed that Diderot knew nothing about mathematics.  So he surprised him in a public debate by demanding, ‘Sir, a plus b to the nth power divided by n equals x; therefore, God exists!  Respond!”  Diderot, understanding nothing, could not open his mouth.  Wild laughter erupted in the room; the humiliated Diderot withdrew and, the next day, packed his bags and returned to France.

“This story may well be apocryphal, but what the New Atheists are doing today is tantamount to the same thing.  Without a shred of evidence on their side, they declare:  ‘Science proves there is no God!  Respond!” — and a public that may not be steeped in all the nuances and technicalities of science is left flummoxed, and hence vulnerable to the New Atheists’ overconfident pronouncements.”

 

Aczel, Why Science Does Not Disprove God, 242-243.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2017/09/two-anecdotes-history-science.html#cyAyHRooeRdczV8P.99

I found it an interesting story.  By embarrassing another, as it seems the point was here, do we ever really validate our position?  I find this in all sorts of religious talk from all sides. Kind of a side not, and somewhat related to what I wanted to get to here. 

If the story is authentic I find it interesting that Diderot went, as it is claimed, to establish his position of atheism.  If one holds a position is it not the burden of that person to provide reason?  It seems Diderot felt it was his burden. 

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.  Some claim to know God.  But that's an impossible discussion and at this point, an unprovable point.  No?  If one claims to know God.  He might point to a visitation, like Joseph Smith's.  But if Joseph saw God, in vision, whose to say it was God and not a figment of imagination, or something other than God working upon the boy?  If one claims to know because of years of experience in being moved by the Spirit, then the same questions can be put to him/her, I'd think.  Was what was experienced really God or not?  It could be something else, thus, the burden of proof remains.  Is it not the case that nearly everyone rejects someone's claim to having experienced God in such a way as claiming to know.  That is, most traditional Christians reject Joseph's claim.  Any claims to seeing God or experiencing Him seem largely rejected unless it's a claim that works within one's framework. 

I was speaking to my wife the other day.  I find myself much more convinced of there being a God than she.  I have no intelligent reason to somehow prove my point.  It's just for some reason I feel He's there, existing, in a way that she does not.  And for all reasons to reject I tend to think it's still possible He's there. 

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I spotted this on Dan Peterson's blog

I found it an interesting story.  By embarrassing another, as it seems the point was here, do we ever really validate our position?  I find this in all sorts of religious talk from all sides. Kind of a side not, and somewhat related to what I wanted to get to here. 

If the story is authentic I find it interesting that Diderot went, as it is claimed, to establish his position of atheism.  If one holds a position is it not the burden of that person to provide reason?  It seems Diderot felt it was his burden. 

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.  Some claim to know God.  But that's an impossible discussion and at this point, an unprovable point.  No?  If one claims to know God.  He might point to a visitation, like Joseph Smith's.  But if Joseph saw God, in vision, whose to say it was God and not a figment of imagination, or something other than God working upon the boy?  If one claims to know because of years of experience in being moved by the Spirit, then the same questions can be put to him/her, I'd think.  Was what was experienced really God or not?  It could be something else, thus, the burden of proof remains.  Is it not the case that nearly everyone rejects someone's claim to having experienced God in such a way as claiming to know.  That is, most traditional Christians reject Joseph's claim.  Any claims to seeing God or experiencing Him seem largely rejected unless it's a claim that works within one's framework. 

I was speaking to my wife the other day.  I find myself much more convinced of there being a God than she.  I have no intelligent reason to somehow prove my point.  It's just for some reason I feel He's there, existing, in a way that she does not.  And for all reasons to reject I tend to think it's still possible He's there. 

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

I have no burden of proof to prove God. The only burden God has placed on His prophets is to witness His words, and His existence. His words are His best evidence of His existence to others I believe unless He chooses to give some other sign.  Worrying about burdens of proof is outside the realm of God. That is for lawyers and man's law. In the world God chooses not to operate on that level, because He is trying to teach faith. He is trying to teach through principles of truth and seeing who will follow. If not, I imagine He would plop down here and let everyone ask questions and experience His majesty. But then why make a world? Just keep us all in heaven since that is what the world would be like. No trial - no individual growth. Purpose for the world defeated.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have no burden of proof to prove God. The only burden God has placed on His prophets is to witness His words, and His existence. His words are His best evidence of His existence to others I believe unless He chooses to give some other sign.  Worrying about burdens of proof is outside the realm of God. That is for lawyers and man's law. In the world God chooses not to operate on that level, because He is trying to teach faith. He is trying to teach through principles of truth and seeing who will follow. If not, I imagine He would plop down here and let everyone ask questions and experience His majesty. But then why make a world? Just keep us all in heaven since that is what the world would be like. No trial - no individual growth. Purpose for the world defeated.

I guess this hits hard on me is because I have too many in my life whom I love who can't make the concept of God word very well in their lives.  And with that, they are often treated with a "well that's too bad.  sounds like it's your fault and problem" by believers. 

I can agree that it's likely God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others.  He apparently wants us to share with others.  But it can all come off as useless to those who don't believe. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I guess this hits hard on me is because I have too many in my life whom I love who can't make the concept of God word very well in their lives.  And with that, they are often treated with a "well that's too bad.  sounds like it's your fault and problem" by believers. 

I can agree that it's likely God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others.  He apparently wants us to share with others.  But it can all come off as useless to those who don't believe. 

I have not been able to make the concept of God work well in my life. I have no idea if it is my fault. Seems like a silly reason to believe or disbelieve.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have not been able to make the concept of God work well in my life. I have no idea if it is my fault. Seems like a silly reason to believe or disbelieve.

What do you mean?  I'd figure if I can't really see how God exists, for whatever reason, that I might feel quite justified in not believing. 

[Stargazer]

I love this book, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God."  I have it on Kindle and Audible, and have read and listened to it several times. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I guess this hits hard on me is because I have too many in my life whom I love who can't make the concept of God word very well in their lives.  And with that, they are often treated with a "well that's too bad.  sounds like it's your fault and problem" by believers. 

I can agree that it's likely God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others.  He apparently wants us to share with others.  But it can all come off as useless to those who don't believe. 

It is kinda frustrating. I don't know that I've ever really had a major impact on anyone in my life - with the possible exception of my kids, but I attribute that mostly to my wife. However, I guess I did kinda drag my wife back to church. I certainly didn't give her testimony back to her though. I do try to be a good representative for God, but I tend to get frustrated kind of easily I guess. I think I have made some impact online, but it is hard to measure. I have built up a little circle of friends on other forums, and then the forum up and changes everything. Most other "orthodox" Christian types react negatively. If you really try to share yourself at work, etc, yeah, it doesn't always work too well, so I can see how they can think they can't make God "work very well in their lives." 

The parable of the sower of the seed comes to mind. Many receive the seed with joy, but when they get back into the world, the world squelches it. Satan has a lot of people he can work through to attack their new faith. This is why it is important to have a Church community to support new converts. Satan is going to attack them hard, and especially work on those areas where they express doubts. Once they express a doubt, their friends will start in with all the reasons not to believe such and such or why they don't believe. They need to expect it not to be easy. Usually, it requires making new friends, because their friends won't change.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I spotted this on Dan Peterson's blog

I found it an interesting story.  By embarrassing another, as it seems the point was here, do we ever really validate our position?  I find this in all sorts of religious talk from all sides. Kind of a side not, and somewhat related to what I wanted to get to here. 

If the story is authentic I find it interesting that Diderot went, as it is claimed, to establish his position of atheism.  If one holds a position is it not the burden of that person to provide reason?  It seems Diderot felt it was his burden. 

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.  Some claim to know God.  But that's an impossible discussion and at this point, an unprovable point.  No?  If one claims to know God.  He might point to a visitation, like Joseph Smith's.  But if Joseph saw God, in vision, whose to say it was God and not a figment of imagination, or something other than God working upon the boy?  If one claims to know because of years of experience in being moved by the Spirit, then the same questions can be put to him/her, I'd think.  Was what was experienced really God or not?  It could be something else, thus, the burden of proof remains.  Is it not the case that nearly everyone rejects someone's claim to having experienced God in such a way as claiming to know.  That is, most traditional Christians reject Joseph's claim.  Any claims to seeing God or experiencing Him seem largely rejected unless it's a claim that works within one's framework. 

I was speaking to my wife the other day.  I find myself much more convinced of there being a God than she.  I have no intelligent reason to somehow prove my point.  It's just for some reason I feel He's there, existing, in a way that she does not.  And for all reasons to reject I tend to think it's still possible He's there. 

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

You ought to read Aczel's book.  It is quite convincing that you can't use science to disprove God.

And Amir D. Aczel does not appear to be a believer himself, he sounds quite agnostic. The only time he implies his own belief about the subject is when he tells about having become a member of an Orthodox church (Greek, I think) just to please his new wife's parents.  Sadly, he passed away in 2015 from cancer.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I guess this hits hard on me is because I have too many in my life whom I love who can't make the concept of God word very well in their lives.  And with that, they are often treated with a "well that's too bad.  sounds like it's your fault and problem" by believers. 

I can agree that it's likely God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others.  He apparently wants us to share with others.  But it can all come off as useless to those who don't believe. 

I can relate to this, unfortunately. Most of my children are not believers, and I don't know how to remedy this.  My late wife tried to bear her testimony to them posthumously at her funeral through her best womanfriend, who gave her eulogy.  She also wrote final letters to each of them before she died.  I've tried to continue this, as gently as I can -- since bludgeoning them doesn't work, lol.

But you're right that God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others, and that we can only share. Then if they are listening they can seek their own proof. If they choose.

I have an atheist friend who looks for proof of God in double-blind scientific trials of prayer, and so on. I've tried to impress on him that God isn't a natural law subject to testing and measurement.  He's a sentient being having His own will and purpose. Not a machine with a toggle switch.

I had this interesting idea to ask any atheist who is sincerely interested in scientific proof that there is a Creator God.  Ask him or her to design an scientific experiment which can prove it one way or another.  I can't come up with one, I'm pretty sure. Except that sometimes God has spoken to me through his Spirit -- in ways that I cannot prove to another but that I cannot deny to myself.  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What do you mean?  I'd figure if I can't really see how God exists, for whatever reason, that I might feel quite justified in not believing. 

Oh, I thought not fitting into your life meant it was inconvenient or against your nature or something like that.

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

But you're right that God doesn't expect us to prove Him to others, and that we can only share. . . . I've tried to impress on him that God isn't a natural law subject to testing and measurement.  He's a sentient being having His own will and purpose. Not a machine with a toggle switch.

Pretty much what I was going to say.

We are responsible for our own life point of view and whether or not it includes God.  There are times we can invite others to 'try' God, but it is less often than we might think.   But I trust that Heavenly Father is able to teach His own children.  I also trust that the voice of God is throughout the Earth at all times (never ceases) and thus it is only a matter of becoming an instrument of receiving.

For those who know there is no God, they are right.  In their world there is no God.  If for no other reason than he has not been invited.  We get to design, by paradigm and by our choices, the world we inhabit.

I do not EVER participate in the idiom of proof, for any reason.  It's frustrating as heck to me, with extremely limited application for anything of any value to me.

I participate in the idiom of paradigm.

God never has been and never will be a concept, to me.  All concepts, to me--since I see the world as in a dynamic paradigm, rather than concrete facts--are on their way to ash.  All of them. Therefore God (as I understand it) is never going to be something described.

God is something I experience and know on a minute by minute basis. 

Nevertheless, I do subscribe to a definition of God that I've chosen that makes the most sense to me; but which is subject to retooling whenever I feel I understand more.  Another way to say it is that there is a certain condition that I experience (daily), and that condition is well described by the word 'God'.  I could choose another word, but it would be the same experience.  But I like the word 'God'.

Sometimes when I ask an atheist to describe the God they are talking about that they know doesn't exist, or can't know exists, then I tell them that I am an atheist to that God also (the one they've defined for themselves even while rejecting it or calling it a null set).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/5/2017 at 12:51 PM, stemelbow said:

.....................................................

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

To be actionable, any logical or scientific claim must be accompanied by its opposite.  That is, it must be falsifiable.  If it isn't falsifiable, it is not a coherent, testable claim.  Claims such as God exists, or the Resurrection is real are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be tested.  The same is true for denial of such claims.  One cannot prove that God exists through logic or science, but likewise one cannot prove that He does not exist.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson recently pointed out, our belief that God exists is a personal truth, but it is not an objective truth of science.  We need to understand the difference.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_HPAXwJFw (June 2017).

A personal testimony may be entirely valid in such cases, but it is not subject to the verification principle of logical positivism, or any other logical or scientific test.  That does not make it weak or insubstantial in any way.  It only makes it personal and non-transferrable.  Your wife is not more correct than you are -- she only has a different opinion.

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[strappinglad]

Just for fun I present this .His book is not long.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=anthony+flew+god&id=5E693C437E691FB2A1AC1CF7C3F3C2D21EBF8771&FORM=IQFRBA

[Meerkat]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.

This is the crux of the whole discussion.  

The Apostle Paul said "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  1 Cor. 2:14

God proves Himself to individuals who seek Him in meekness.

"And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.
            If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity." Moroni 7:43-44

I have often found it to be a futile exercise to engage someone in a discussion where they require proof before they will believe.  To one with faith and hope, all things testify there is a God.  To those without it, nothing testifies there is a God. Proof comes to an individual according to the conditions outlined above, in my opinion.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[Gray]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I spotted this on Dan Peterson's blog

I found it an interesting story.  By embarrassing another, as it seems the point was here, do we ever really validate our position?  I find this in all sorts of religious talk from all sides. Kind of a side not, and somewhat related to what I wanted to get to here. 

If the story is authentic I find it interesting that Diderot went, as it is claimed, to establish his position of atheism.  If one holds a position is it not the burden of that person to provide reason?  It seems Diderot felt it was his burden. 

There is no proof for or against God, seems to be the common thought on this.  Some claim to know God.  But that's an impossible discussion and at this point, an unprovable point.  No?  If one claims to know God.  He might point to a visitation, like Joseph Smith's.  But if Joseph saw God, in vision, whose to say it was God and not a figment of imagination, or something other than God working upon the boy?  If one claims to know because of years of experience in being moved by the Spirit, then the same questions can be put to him/her, I'd think.  Was what was experienced really God or not?  It could be something else, thus, the burden of proof remains.  Is it not the case that nearly everyone rejects someone's claim to having experienced God in such a way as claiming to know.  That is, most traditional Christians reject Joseph's claim.  Any claims to seeing God or experiencing Him seem largely rejected unless it's a claim that works within one's framework. 

I was speaking to my wife the other day.  I find myself much more convinced of there being a God than she.  I have no intelligent reason to somehow prove my point.  It's just for some reason I feel He's there, existing, in a way that she does not.  And for all reasons to reject I tend to think it's still possible He's there. 

What about those who claim there is no god?

Some seem to suggest, wouldn't it also assume that if one claim atheism, then that one has a burden as well?  I get the position that one might suggest "well I see no tangible evidence for a god, therefore at this time I don't believe there's a god".  That statement is much like a believers--I believe there's a God. 

In most things, if not all, we establish this burden of proof being upon those who make the claim, no?  So if one says he believes in UFOs, is it not his burden to prove?  Is it reasonable to conclude no UFOs if no evidence is provided?  How would you prove the not of something?  It certainly doesn't seem like one can. 

I ask because if I debated my wife she'd whip me on this topic.  Not only because she's more intelligent, but because she has the upper hand in this.  I can't reasonably prove my claim of God, therefore the most reasonable explanation is no God.  She wouldn't have to do much. 

Are we stuck on this? 

Is this a topic that would require the naysayers to assume the burden to prove the no?  Just because it's a special unique topic? 

The word God is really all about definitions. How do you define God? Depending on how you answer the question, God's existence might be totally outside the realm of scientific evidence, or not at all.

Mainstream Christians believe in a supernatural, first cause agent as God. By definition the supernatural is outside of the scientific conversation.

Mainstream Mormons believe in a natural God who is a part of creation rather than its ultimate cause. Could such a God be studied by science? Yes. But only if He submitted himself for inspection. Would everyone agree that this person was God, were he to appear here? Maybe not. It comes down to subjective definitions.

Me, my theism is pantheism. That means I believe the only thing that exists is God. Does existence exist? Of course it does. That means God's existence can be confirmed by scientific inquiry. For people like me, the existence of God is a given, a rather obvious fact. Somehow, this doesn't seem to have been a big game changer.

Again, it's all in how you define God.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The word God is really all about definitions. How do you define God? Depending on how you answer the question, God's existence might be totally outside the realm of scientific evidence, or not at all.

Mainstream Christians believe in a supernatural, first cause agent as God. By definition the supernatural is outside of the scientific conversation.

Mainstream Mormons believe in a natural God who is a part of creation rather than its ultimate cause. Could such a God be studied by science? Yes. But only if He submitted himself for inspection. Would everyone agree that this person was God, were he to appear here? Maybe not. It comes down to subjective definitions.

Me, my theism is pantheism. That means I believe the only thing that exists is God. Does existence exist? Of course it does. That means God's existence can be confirmed by scientific inquiry. For people like me, the existence of God is a given, a rather obvious fact. Somehow, this doesn't seem to have been a big game changer.

Again, it's all in how you define God.

God exists if someone out there thinks that there is something out there that is God.  God exists because human conception exists.  If anyone even addresses the question of whether God exists then He's there, otherwise the person arguing there is no God is arguing against the proposition of nothing. 

God exists because we can't settle on a definition--each person's conception of God, if he has one, is unique.  God then is everything. 

I guess. 

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To be actionable, any logical or scientific claim must be accompanied by its opposite.  That is, it must be falsifiable.  If it isn't falsifiable, it is not a coherent, testable claim.  Claims such as God exists, or the Resurrection is real are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be tested.  The same is true for denial of such claims.  One cannot prove that God exists through logic or science, but likewise one cannot prove that He does not exist.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson recently pointed out, our belief that God exists is a personal truth, but it is not an objective truth of science.  We need to understand the difference.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM_HPAXwJFw (June 2017).

A personal testimony may be entirely valid in such cases, but it is not subject to the verification principle of logical positivism, or any other logical or scientific test.  That does not make it weak or insubstantial in any way.  It only makes it personal and non-transferrable.  You wife is not more correct than you are -- she only has a different opinion.

 

Perhaps philosophically.  But in terms of scientific inquiry, we're left with no evidence of him, unless we define him as some conception of anything. 

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God exists if someone out there thinks that there is something out there that is God.  God exists because human conception exists.  If anyone even addresses the question of whether God exists then He's there, otherwise the person arguing there is no God is arguing against the proposition of nothing. 

Yes, at the bare minimum, every God exists, even if only conceptually. Although I quite like the American Gods notion that if enough people believe in a God, that God becomes a physical reality. It would be fun to hang out with Thor and Anansi.

 

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

God exists because we can't settle on a definition--each person's conception of God, if he has one, is unique.  God then is everything. 

I guess. 

Good man!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

God exists if someone out there thinks that there is something out there that is God.  God exists because human conception exists.  If anyone even addresses the question of whether God exists then He's there, otherwise the person arguing there is no God is arguing against the proposition of nothing. 

God exists because we can't settle on a definition--each person's conception of God, if he has one, is unique.  God then is everything. 

I guess. 

You're guessing alright, and what you say is nonsense.  That means non + sense in not making any logical sense.  Just because I have a conception of Saint Nick or the tooth fairy does not mean that either of them exists.  You need a good college course in critical thinking or logic.

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Perhaps philosophically.  But in terms of scientific inquiry, we're left with no evidence of him, unless we define him as some conception of anything. 

The definition itself must be coherent and meaningful.  We cannot know whether God exists by any logical or scientific method.  He can only be apprehended subjectively.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You're guessing alright, and what you say is nonsense.  That means non + sense in not making any logical sense.  Just because I have a conception of Saint Nick or the tooth fairy does not mean that either of them exists.  You need a good college course in critical thinking or logic.

The definition itself must be coherent and meaningful.  We cannot know whether God exists by any logical or scientific method.  He can only be apprehended subjectively.

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.  I guess some misunderstanding has occurred here.  If God is only apprehended subjectively, then it seems it is that He exists exactly because people conceive of Him.  Ask a thousand people to define God and you might well receive many multiple answers.  He is as we perceive.  He interacts as we perceive, subjectively.  His intervening occurs if someone says so. 

[Meerkat]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.  I guess some misunderstanding has occurred here.  If God is only apprehended subjectively, then it seems it is that He exists exactly because people conceive of Him.  Ask a thousand people to define God and you might well receive many multiple answers.  He is as we perceive.  He interacts as we perceive, subjectively.  His intervening occurs if someone says so. 

I took Robert Smith's post to mean exactly how I received proof that God is real, and that Jesus Christ really did do what He said he did.  It was subjective, meaning God revealed Himself to me, individually  in a way I could understand it.  He didn't reveal it to my wife at the same time.  It took a few days of me fasting and praying for her, that God would find a way to give her the same testimony He had given me.  I arrived home from school about a week after the fast.  She met me at the door and said "It really is true, isn't it."  I said "Yes it is."  She told me "I want to be baptized with you."  And that was it.  God had revealed Himself to her during a paper she was writing.  He really came through for me.  In my prayer, I explained that we were newlyweds and I didn't want to start our married life with me in the Church, and her outside of it, even though she supported me if I wanted to get baptized.  That was nearly 45 years ago.  And the evidence has been mounting ever since, not to mention the joy of living this wonderful life. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[The Nehor]

My God can beat up your God.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

My God can beat up your God.

Happens.  There are consequences though, some more pleasant than others.  

Edited September 6, 2017 by Meerkat

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

My God can beat up your God.

Probably.  Since god is whatever you think him to be.  I don't really conceive of a violent god

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself.  I guess some misunderstanding has occurred here.  If God is only apprehended subjectively, then it seems it is that He exists exactly because people conceive of Him.  Ask a thousand people to define God and you might well receive many multiple answers.  He is as we perceive.  He interacts as we perceive, subjectively.  His intervening occurs if someone says so. 

Again, you have serious problems with ordinary logic, and you desperately need a college course in logic or critical thinking.  Mere assertion for you seems to be equivalent to fact.  And you seem unable to respond to actual discussion -- about Santa and the tooth fairy, for example, which you apparently believe actually exist simply because someone believes in them.

Also you are unable to differentiate objective and subjective.  Failure to understand English is the death knell to serious discussion.