Can you make a God claim?

[robvalue]

So seriously, does anyone want to enlighten me with an actual practical description of a non-scientific method of demonstrating real existence?

A way that, at a minimum, distinguishes the existence from nothing at all?

[dyresand]

So seriously, does anyone want to enlighten me with an actual practical description of a non-scientific method of demonstrating real existence?

A way that, at a minimum, distinguishes the existence from nothing at all?

Plants you need them they need you. Without plants you wouldn't be able to live. Without humans and animals plants wouldn't be able to live. Good enough for you?

[robvalue]

Sure, you've convinced me, plants exist Or maybe plants are God, using your argument. We rely on them for continued existence, and they rely on animals like you say, like we are keeping them around with "worship". All the gods I have ever heard about only exist as long as they are worshipped. After that, they become "made up".

Is there a word for plant worship? I'll get some badges made.

[dyresand]

Sure, you've convinced me, plants exist Or maybe plants are God, using your argument. We rely on them for continued existence, and they rely on animals like you say, like we are keeping them around with "worship". All the gods I have ever heard about only exist as long as they are worshipped. After that, they become "made up".

Is there a word for plant worship? I'll get some badges made.

Except with plants you can see them smell them taste some of them and eat them not all of them because some are bad to digest.

[robvalue]

*Chomp* *chomp* *cho...*

They are? :o

[Nope]

*Chomp* *chomp* *cho...*

They are? :o

Isn't it obvious? The loving plant world allows themselves to be sacrificed to the animal kingdom in order to provide an example of the highest form of love in the hope that thier example will save us from our barbarity. All Hail the Plants.

I decided to create a god thread. Hopefully people will see it as silly fun.

[dyresand]

*Chomp* *chomp* *cho...*

They are? :o

Yes the dark side the night shades and other various forms of deadly plants.. you do eat them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Aristotle: Unmoved mover, i.e. that which persists in its being throughout all change.

Something that moves others but doesn't move itself or maybe it changes others and doesn't change itself?

The unmoved mover is Aristotle’s solution that bridges the divide between Parmenides (nothing changes) and Heraclitus (everything changes). His solution is based on the distinction between what exists in potential and what exists in actuality. Only something actual can act on potentials; whereas, what exists only in potential cannot. Since things cannot act on themselves, in order to avoid an infinite regress there must be something at the bottom of reality, something that exists in full actuality.

Anslem: that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.

Something that is so much more powerful than everything else that is beyond comprehension.

Anslem does present a certain mysticism. Anyone who has experienced the Divine (and there are very many that have) knows that such encounters are ineffable. Even Aquinas considered all of this writing to worthless rags after having a mystical experience.

Plotinus: The All, i.e. the perfect source of Form in which the forms of all contingent things partially partake. (That one needs to be unpacked some, but I think is a fair summary)

This one sounds almost Hindu. God is all. Does that mean that god is a tree or rock like in some religions? God is the perfect form of everything else. Is my interpretation correct?

Some people interpret Plotinus pantheistically. I see a more panentheistic. Particular instances of form partake of the perfect forms that subsist in the intellect that is itself the completeness of all form.

Aquinas: Among other things, the Supreme Intelligence that determines the final causes toward which efficient cause are directed.

The most intelligent being that invented the end toward which the beginning is headed? Okay, that one can't be right.

[/quote]The idea is that efficient causes, barring intervening circumstances, bring about a specific range of effects. For example, when a hammer strikes a glass, the glass shatters. The glass does not burst into flames nor does it turn to liquid. This demonstrates that efficient causes act on natural bodies towards regular ends. Things without knowledge only act toward an end when directed by something that has an end in mind. Therefore it follows that some intelligent agent directs all causes toward their ends at the most fundamental level.

[Mudhammam]

Maybe I can summarize my position like this.

I'd say OP boils down to, Given that scientific evidence is the only valid evidence, make a valid claim about god.

But, many people would reject your presumed given.

"In guiding us in the creation of such an order of sense experiences, success in the result is alone the determining factor. All that is necessary is the statement of a set of rules, since without such rules the acquisition of knowledge in the desired sense would be impossible. One may compare these rules with the rules of a game in which, while the rules themselves are arbitrary, it is their rigidity alone which makes the game possible.”

I'll go with Einstein.

[Neo-Scholastic]

And what accounts for the rigidity of the rules? They could be anything, but they are actually very specific.