Earth - Proof of God?

[Drich]

Now you're just trying to be offensive. Evasion noted.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was just fun'n the limey. that said if your looking for an out, this is as good as any.

[Cyberman]

Up to you mate. There's only so much mileage to be gained out of trying to push one's head through a brick wall. I will just make the observation that "basic common sense" is seldom basic, sadly not very common and often nonsense. How it applies to god claims I've no idea.

[justin]

You just demonstrated that you get what I'm saying. To borrow your analogy, the claim that you have a son can be proven by producing him (although we could then go into the whole area of how do you prove that he actually is your son, but that goes beyond the scope of the analogy). Were you to state that you have a son and that his existence is the proof of the claim, without presenting this proof, we would be in exactly the same situation as with the statement "God is proof of God".

In other words, can you present this God as you might your son?

You are confused as to who makes this claim. you are approaching me and appearently other christians to prove something we have no claim to. Our sole responsiablity to to point to where we found the proof we need to establish and maintain our relationships.

Remember God makes that claim. The responsiablity to proove what He has claimed is on Him.

---

I would agree with you that the physical presence of a god that was testable by science would indeed constitute proof of god. however as no proof of god exists I must conclude that neither does god.

First though you must thoroughly define god which no one has ever managed to pull off.

In order for you to come to this conclusion one must assume that the knoweledge of science is complete. In that nothing can exist outside the realm science currently presides over.

---

We've barely explored the galaxy with our telescopes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own solar system with our probes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own planet with ourselves.

Only someone very uninformed about the state of science and exploration could make the idiotic statements you made in your OP.

I may have to quote you here.

---

...and what about all the people (myself included) who did ask, and for whom God did not show up?

Did you Ask, Seek and Knock (A/S/K) as out lined in luke 11?

---

And unicorns prove unicorns drich. All you're doing is assuming god exist. That's not proof. And what about amputees that pray for limbs? Or mental handicaps that pray to be relieved of their handicap? And i can prove i exist by evidence. There is no evidence for god. Let alone the god of you religion. Like christopher hitchens said "you have all your work still ahead of you".

We've barely explored the galaxy with our telescopes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own solar system with our probes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own planet with ourselves.

Only someone very uninformed about the state of science and exploration could make the idiotic statements you made in your OP.

-Tiberius

wow.....just fucking wow.
you sir are fucking retarded.
I`M NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS OF A GOD YOU MINDLESS TWAT! you just made my argument stronger dumbshit

[Esquilax]

Please don't try that one one me. Now Dats a good boi. Didn't you quote me at the beginning of this post say "God is the proof of God?" How can I do both? (Claim God is proof of God and then Claim God exists? My quote points to God for confirmation) At best I can only Confirm what God has claimed. The Claim is not mine to make. Mine is to only verify the proof offered to me.

Would you agree with me when I say that, in order for you to relay the claim (you believe) someone else has made, you are presupposing this original claimant to exist? If not, would you not simply be making shit up?

[KichigaiNeko]

Probably you don't know my Pastor. He is a man of righteous. He will never lie. He loves us and we love him back.

Doesn't matter if your pasta would lie or not. What count are the claims and the evidence for them, not the authority and integrity of the person making them. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Ramen

---

Dinner time

[ManMachine]

My Pastor told me something today that confirmed to me, beyond all doubts, that my Lord exists. I hope the below explanation makes sense to you too and you are to decide the truth in this.

Code:

Out of hundreds of planets in the universe, why is the earth only one supporting life? Because someone made it that way. We have explored the whole universe and only the earth supports life. That is evidence enough for something higher than all of us.

This is what in known as a fallacy, in this particular case it contains a number of fallacious elements.

The first is what is called an 'appeal to ignorance'. This means that the statement contains a number of presented 'facts' that cannot be held to be true and rely on the ignorance of the individual to accept them as factually correct when they are not. These are,

"Out of hundreds of planets in the universe..."

We know there are trillions of planets in the universe, we can't know exactly for sure because we don't know exactly for sure how big the Universe is, but we know enough to say with some confidence the number of planets will be in the trillions and not the hundreds.

Interestingly there is another interpretation of this, that being your pastor was making reference to a specific number of planets that he has numbered in the hundreds. Without knowing what his specific terms of reference are it is impossible to establish any truth to the statement. This again relies on the ignorance of the individual of the terms of reference used in the statement.


Next, the statement continues,

"Out of Hundreds of planets in the universe, why is the earth [the] only one supporting life?"

We don't know this to be true. If we don't know how many planets there are we cannot possibly know how many of them have life and how many do not. Once again this appeals to the ignorance of the individual.

We also know that scientists have found what could be fossilised microscopic life forms in meteorite fragments. While this is not yet confirmed (to my knowledge) it would, if true, completely disprove your pastor's statement. But this is unconfirmed so we'll pass over this one for now.

The statement also relies on a fallacy called an 'appeal to authority', in that it requires you to accept it as true because you pastor said it and he is, in your eyes, a person with authority.

I don't know if your pastor is a recognised authority in astrobiology. Even if your pastor is, then you have to question his statement in view of the fact there is a lack of evidence to prove or disprove his conclusion. The only true statement that can be made is we don't know that in the universe the only place where life exists is the Earth.

The next statement is a fallacy called an 'irrelevant conclusion'. The statement continues,

"Because someone made it that way."

It is not possible to establish this as the only answer to the questioning statement not only due to the lack of verifiable fact but that it relies heavily on unquestioning acceptance of fallacious arguments.

Even if it were possible to categorically state all the preceding statements were true it would still not be the only possible answer.

The rest of the statement is simply not true. We have not explored the universe in enough detail to even know its limits let alone determine how many life-supporting planets there are and that they do not have life on them.

I can accept the likelihood that your pastor has himself heard this from someone else and is genuinely passing it on as a true statement but it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

What you have here is an irrelevant conclusion built on fallacious statements. The entire statement is seriously flawed. You wouldn't take your car to be fixed by a dentist, it's probably best to not accept statements about astrobiology and astronomy from someone who is not an authority or does not know where to find reliable sources to look these things up.

By all means listen to what he says about your faith, but beware of grand statements like this, they can inadvertently make fools out of well-meaning people.


MM

[Drich]

Up to you mate. There's only so much mileage to be gained out of trying to push one's head through a brick wall. I will just make the observation that "basic common sense" is seldom basic, sadly not very common and often nonsense. How it applies to god claims I've no idea.

What if the goal is to simply get through the wall?

The common sense was employed to see past a 'logic' that would not allow for the presents of "proof" to encompass the being "proof" was required of. In otherwords somehow it is logical to say (to the point of riticule) That having God present or rather you being made aware of the presents of God is not considered 'proof.' Even if that is what you are looking for.

What kind of crazy it that? When I am looking for something I stop looking when I find it. Because I found what I was looking for. I don't keep looking because I need some sort of other 'proof' that what I found was what I was looking for.

---

Would you agree with me when I say that, in order for you to relay the claim (you believe) someone else has made, you are presupposing this original claimant to exist? If not, would you not simply be making shit up?

The Claim was made long before i was born. (That God is)

Subsequently, God provides a way to verify this claim. My role in this is not to make a paralell claim. Mine is to to point to the avenue that was left and tell you it is a viable path. So IF you want 'proof' take God up on His offer/promise.

[Cyberman]

Up to you mate. There's only so much mileage to be gained out of trying to push one's head through a brick wall. I will just make the observation that "basic common sense" is seldom basic, sadly not very common and often nonsense. How it applies to god claims I've no idea.

What if the goal is to simply get through the wall?

Then I would find a way to get over, or go around, the wall. I don't consider myself an irresistible force (oh how I wish...), so you must forgive me for experiencing human feelings of frustration when faced with an immovable object.

The common sense was employed to see past a 'logic' that would not allow for the presents of "proof" to encompass the being "proof" was required of. In otherwords somehow it is logical to say (to the point of riticule) That having God present or rather you being made aware of the presents of God is not considered 'proof.' Even if that is what you are looking for.

I would never disallow evidence, let alone 'proof', that purports to support a claim. Give me something I can sink my teeth into and I'll chew it over. The most I've ever seen dished up are the usual warmed-over apologetic table scraps and unsatisfying platitudinous gristle. They may be carefully presented with touches of garnish here and there, but ultimately their nourishment value is deeply lacking.

Let's try an analogy. You stand in court accused of some sundry crime. The prosecution builds its case on claims that you did the deed, but the jury is expected to believe that the claims are evidence enough to convict you. At best the case hinges on promises of third party testimony which is never presented, from a single witness who is never identified and never appears to testify. Based on your words above, and considering that potentially many years of your life are at stake, would this be a fair trial?

What kind of crazy it that? When I am looking for something I stop looking when I find it. Because I found what I was looking for. I don't keep looking because I need some sort of other 'proof' that what I found was what I was looking for.

Exactly. If it were something tangible, such as car keys, to carry on looking for them after you find them would indeed be pointless. Yet "God" is the ultimate investigation-killer, the ultimate non-answer. "God" is sold as the explanation for everything from the Origins of Everything to the whims of the weather. Why did an earthquake destroy such-and-such city and kill thousands of people? God. Where did flesh-eating bacteria come from? God. What makes water wet? God. Why did the chicken cross the road? God. Who put the ram in the rama-lama-ding-dong? Wait, wait, don't tell me; I know this one...

Ever see that Simpsons episode with Lucy Lawless at a sci-fi convention, fielding audience questions about Xena? She was asked to explain certain plot holes and production errors in the series, to which she replied "It's really quite simple. Every time you see something like that, a wizard did it." For ten points, can you identify why that is an unsatisfying answer?

[Drich]

You are confused as to who makes this claim. you are approaching me and appearently other christians to prove something we have no claim to. Our sole responsiablity to to point to where we found the proof we need to establish and maintain our relationships.

Remember God makes that claim. The responsiablity to proove what He has claimed is on Him.

---

In order for you to come to this conclusion one must assume that the knoweledge of science is complete. In that nothing can exist outside the realm science currently presides over.

---

I may have to quote you here.

---

Did you Ask, Seek and Knock (A/S/K) as out lined in luke 11?

---

We've barely explored the galaxy with our telescopes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own solar system with our probes.
No wait, scratch that. We've barely explored our own planet with ourselves.

Only someone very uninformed about the state of science and exploration could make the idiotic statements you made in your OP.

-Tiberius

wow.....just fucking wow.
you sir are fucking retarded.
I`M NOT MAKING ANY CLAIMS OF A GOD YOU MINDLESS TWAT! you just made my argument stronger dumbshit

God makes Claims that He is God, therefore it is on Him to prove this. Do try and keep up, now that's a good chap.

[Anomalocaris]

Up to you mate. There's only so much mileage to be gained out of trying to push one's head through a brick wall. I will just make the observation that "basic common sense" is seldom basic, sadly not very common and often nonsense. How it applies to god claims I've no idea.

What if the goal is to simply get through the wall?

The common sense was employed to see past a 'logic' that would not allow for the presents of "proof" to encompass the being "proof" was required of. In otherwords somehow it is logical to say (to the point of riticule) That having God present or rather you being made aware of the presents of God is not considered 'proof.' Even if that is what you are looking for.

What kind of crazy it that? When I am looking for something I stop looking when I find it. Because I found what I was looking for. I don't keep looking because I need some sort of other 'proof' that what I found was what I was looking for.

It boils down to "if a hellucination feel pleasant in however low brow, self-indulgent way, then just pretend its real, don't find out, and damn the consequences". How utterly pathetic.