Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Nah that is not being flippant, rather it is displaying a level.of ignorance bordering on stupidity.

I'm not going in that direction at all. But look where I snipped your quote and the bolded word. Are you saying that "this conversation using…" etc. etc. "the internet" is something you perceive? If so, how do you perceive it? How do you perceive anything?

And here we have evidence that you are going down the "prove you are not a tree" path. Which if you are is somewhat of a desperate act considering I would not expect you to have nihilistic tendencies. Aside from this I did not use "perception" in my words, rather I predicted that you would use them. And low a behold, what a surprise, you just did.

On the contrary, you put the words in my mouth. You put it out there, not I. All I did was roll with it and ask a simple question that you seem too afraid to answer.

So…once again, not answering the question. Has nothing to do with nihilism. I wonder how many posts you'll write in response to me and refuse to answer the question… Is it really that frightening a question to answer? Seriously…how does anyone perceive anything?

Or is it just safer to hide behind the "prove you are not a tree" straw man?

I'll repeat it one last time to make it easier for me to copy/paste into future posts: How does anyone perceive anything?

Hmm... anyone can prove they're not a tree because they can move around on their own two legs and don't have roots or leaves. Everything that can be described has certain distinguishing characteristics that define it as the object to which a word (noun)is given. We perceive everything we see around us according to the features peculiar to that organism or non-organic object. That's the scientific or objective way of seeing anything we observe around us.

But people also create their own reality around those things which cannot easily be defined by their physical characteristics. If people can't even agree on the colour of a certain dress or whatever the case, they certainly have differing ideas on less definable things such as the various facets of faith.

Tempted with an Aussie joke there... but I'll leave it alone.

wombats all the way

Rho you are getting incredibly boring, get to your point if you have one. you perceive with you senses, now prove me wrong with your idiotic BS.

Do be respectful to him even if you can't agree...it's unscientific to descend to that level...

My point is that it's easy to verify things we perceive with the normal five senses but everyone has a sixth dimension where realities are usually unverifiable. That's why there are flat earthers, believers in the hollow earth and inner sun, etc etc. as well as other more rational beliefs.

Respectfully, mind your own business.


Evidence please

I'm referring to the mind, the recesses in everyone's brain where their thoughts and ideas reside, and evidence for that is all around us. Carried to extreme measures this is why there are suicide bombers who blow themselves and others up for some illogical idea in their twisted mind that tells them there are delightful virgins awaiting them on the other side.

On the more positive side, it can be put to creative use and is the quality used by great writers and artists who give us a glimpse into their beautiful universes through their creative output.

I don't think this is off topic. It simply means that everyone perceives the world differently and that's why some folk, more influenced by their upbringing and less able to find their own reality, grow up with fundamentalist beliefs inherited from their parents, church or culture, for instance. Others use their various experiences to find a path of their own.

Illusions do exist. You can trick a person to believe that the illogical is logical. It's not only the idiots that get fooled, pretty much anyone can fooled.

We don't have a 6th sense.

Proving you wrong isn't my point.

Sure, we perceive via senses. You can observe through the senses that technology conceived through scientific study and innovation allows you to communicate in the particular manner that we are. For my purposes, that sufficiently answers the question of "how we know." Nothing relativistic, postmodern, nihilistic, or even deep about it. Sure, it's boring. I'll give you that much. But it's not "prove I'm not a tree" by any stretch.

Essentially you've said that we get external verification of science, etc. through the senses, or the sensory experience of utilizing what science yields. Is that it? The problem with that is you have to use a foundation of science to "prove" science, that is, observation. That's not external verification. That's question-begging and irrational.

I don't think you're wrong, hence why proving you wrong isn't my point--at least not for the time being, anyway. You're definitely wrong about something, just not that. I believe that the senses can be trusted. I believe that observations can be verified. I believe science yields technology and serves its purpose of helping us understand our world. There's no disagreement on this.

But science doesn't get a free pass, either, at least not under empiricism. If it's fundamentally begging the question, i.e. assumes itself to prove itself, it is logically flawed. If it is logically flawed, it is WRONG. Calling it wrong might even be giving it too much credit. Yet it's irrational and somehow it is still useful. How do we account for this? Not the useful part…we've established the usefulness of science and empirical study. How do we account for that irrationality through circular reasoning?

Physical science is the best method we have of coming to terms with the world external to our bodies. From physical science has emerged applied science and engineering which produces the artifacts and products that have extending our life spans and have promoted our health and well being. The cash value of science is established by its outcome and is beyond any reasonable doubt. No other method has enabled us to comprehend the world outside our skins nearly so well.

ruveyhn