RE: Conclusive proof of God
October 4, 2014 at 5:04 am
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2014 at 5:07 am by satsujin.)
(October 4, 2014 at 4:53 am)Aoi Magi Wrote: You and I seem to have different definitions for the word "believe". Also your stance is confusing.My idea of belief is this: Something I think is true or not without a basis of personal experience. We only know something is true when we personally experience it. So mcuh of what we learn in school is belief not knowledge because we believe our teachers would not lie to us. Unless you did the experiments in chemistry class, you wouldn't know it was true.
Quote:So if some being arrived on Earth claiming to be able to do this, which natural laws would it have to defy? And do you think science would accept this as supernatural or instead inexplicable?
Coming back to the confusion regarding the definitions of god, yes, you're correct about that. But that is not an immediate concern. The basis of the idea of God in every major religion is a supernatural existence which can effect the natural world in a way which defies the natural laws. So before anyone can consider which god did the miracle, one needs to establish that there is a possibility of a supernatural existence which can defy the natural laws.
(October 4, 2014 at 4:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I'm a sceptic and I accept it. I don't think scepticism and materialism are the same thing. Insisting upon finite proof just limits your logical possibilities.
But don't you think that the fact that we would be limited to finite proofs limits what this being can prove? Or are there infinite proofs that you think Man could understand would exist?
