Christ's birthday

[downbeatplumb]

So can you show me how, old fella, my nonfactual beliefs are actually factual? Sure I can defend the logic as workable... otherwise I wouldn't hold my beliefs. the actual faith bit remains solidly unprovable though. Unless you think it's not. Please elucidate.

See?
I give up on this one - nobody is ever going to make a faithhead face up to a proposition which might threaten them. We've all seen it so often on these forums. This one is not very important, so I'll simply abandon it. Anyone else fancy a try?

I'll have a go.

Frodo contends that God is unprovable.

But everything that exits could, in theory, have a test that would prove/disprove its existence. even if we don't know how to do it now, we can't discount that in the future some sort of test would be a possibility.

So all we need is some aspect of gods influence on the 'real' world and test that.

If there is no such thing what the hell use is he?

[fr0d0]

And that's the question DBP (Very well put by the way). What _is_ the point that God manifests himself like this? ...Faith is obviously greatly important.. the process of accepting something we cannot prove (to bastardise the quote). If God were known then we'd just be following rules mindlessly like we do with everything else in life. This is about us using our intelligence to do what's right.

But I don't think this is what Alfred or Chatpilot are asking. What I think they're on about is my assertion of the basis of my belief being fact to me (not my actual belief in God (correct me if I'm wrong guys)). I agree I do believe the basis of my belief is based in absolute solid logic. I don't believe in superstition, magic or make believe. To me what the bible says on this aspect of the human condition is spot on. I'm not saying that Christianity has the exclusive right to this, but it does have an answer.

[chatpilot]

Frodo Said: "To me what the bible says on this aspect of the human condition is spot on. I'm not saying that Christianity has the exclusive right to this, but it does have an answer."

A faulty answer since faith is not based on anything but what you believe to be true based on what you think is logically sound(subjectivity). In my opinion you don't need god to know the human condition, it is quite obvious what the human condition is.

[fr0d0]

That doesn't make it faulty chatty, just unprovable.

How else do we work out what's true and what's not true except by going with what is most logically rational?

[Tiberius]

But everything that exits could, in theory, have a test that would prove/disprove its existence. even if we don't know how to do it now, we can't discount that in the future some sort of test would be a possibility.

So all we need is some aspect of gods influence on the 'real' world and test that.

If there is no such thing what the hell use is he?

Correction, everything that exists as matter/energy in theory has a test that can prove/disprove its existence. The philosophy of materialism is what science clings to (for good reason), and it states that all that exists is matter or energy. The only problem with materialism is that you can't prove it, thus it is an assumption that science works with.

God cannot be said to exist as matter or energy, indeed if God is non-temporal then it doesn't exist as either of these, but as something else. Thus a simple test to demonstrate its existence is not feasible. One argument against this is that if God acted on the universe to change things (as many believers hold it does), then it should leave evidence behind of these changes that contradict scientific observation. Of course, the massive problem with this is that if God can be said to move freely outside the confines of time and space, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that God can change things in such a way as to hide the fact that it changed things. The other problem is that there is nothing to say that God doesn't simply use natural and scientifically observable processes to act upon the universe in the first place.

God is ultimately unprovable either way.

[downbeatplumb]

But everything that exits could, in theory, have a test that would prove/disprove its existence. even if we don't know how to do it now, we can't discount that in the future some sort of test would be a possibility.

So all we need is some aspect of gods influence on the 'real' world and test that.

If there is no such thing what the hell use is he?

Correction, everything that exists as matter/energy in theory has a test that can prove/disprove its existence. The philosophy of materialism is what science clings to (for good reason), and it states that all that exists is matter or energy. The only problem with materialism is that you can't prove it, thus it is an assumption that science works with.

God cannot be said to exist as matter or energy, indeed if God is non-temporal then it doesn't exist as either of these, but as something else. Thus a simple test to demonstrate its existence is not feasible. One argument against this is that if God acted on the universe to change things (as many believers hold it does), then it should leave evidence behind of these changes that contradict scientific observation. Of course, the massive problem with this is that if God can be said to move freely outside the confines of time and space, then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that God can change things in such a way as to hide the fact that it changed things. The other problem is that there is nothing to say that God doesn't simply use natural and scientifically observable processes to act upon the universe in the first place.

God is ultimately unprovable either way.

Whose side are you on?

[Darwinian]

Whose side are you on?

Oooh, you shouldn't, oughta have said that. hock:

[Tiberius]

Whose side are you on?

The side of which constitutes the most rational and reasonable proposition. It just so happens that this time around, it isn't the side you are on. I'll ask a question to you that fr0d0 asked to Kyu oh so many months ago:

"What test could you possibly perform, or what piece of evidence could you possibly obtain that would prove God existed?"

Arthur C Clarke (famous atheist and agnostic) put it this way: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Even if the stars themselves started to dance, an angelic chorus cried out through the night, and a man resembling Jesus descended from the clouds, you might be convinced of God, but you are also unable to say for absolute certainty that such a being, and such events, aren't just advanced alien technology.

Truthfully, there is no such thing as "proof" in the natural world. The only things we can prove are through systems we have invented ourselves, since we invented them to have proof built in (mathematics for example). There is no method that can prove anything about reality, since there is no way of knowing that reality won't do something different one day. We aren't infallible, so we just cannot know. Science, empiricism, spiritualism, whatever you want to use, is all a bunch of probabilities. I'm not saying that some probabilities aren't more accurate than others, but they are all less than 100% certainty nevertheless.

[Edwardo Piet]

There is no proof in the natural world, but there is evidence

EvF

[chatpilot]

The god hypothesis in my view is unprovable in the natural world. The fact that it requires faith which in itself is an unscientific and unreasonable concept puts it out of the reach of mankind to know god through any other way.