What would it take to prove the existence of a God?

[lindagarrette]

Proof is not a condition of belief. Proof is an objective of science. The main difference between the two systems (religion and science) is that the latter is intersubjectively verifyable. That means that an educated person can demostrate validity of a given scientific theory regardless of that person's other cultural or environmental situations. Gravity and the speed of light apply equally to everyone in the world, in the universe, for that matter. There is no point in further haggling over this issue.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus
Freethinker,

that what you define proof (and I guess you are right in your definition) I called objective proof, it may not be like in a dictionnary, but consistent. Let's say I would believe, then I could show you my reasons and tell you these are my proofs. It would then be a subjective proof!

That's what I meant.

a "REASON" is NEVER "PROOF". It is was and always will be ONLY A REASON.

Objective proof woould be "I had it tested and it is made of metal.

Subjective would be "It feels like it is made of metal to me."

A REASON would be, "I wanted it to be a piece of metal."

[IrishEyes]

Gravity and the speed of light apply equally to everyone in the world, in the universe, for that matter.

The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon. Gravity still exists on the moon, right? But how can it if the apple doesn't fall off the tree there? see, while the theory of gravity may not be subjective, it's verifiability can be questioned, depending on your place in the universe.

And the speed of light is a constant, and that is accepted all throughout the universe? What of the scientific data that points to the speed of light actually getting slower? Is that all faked by Christians?

Yes, some things can be proven objectively. The earth rotates around the sun. That is not subjective, is it? There is proof for that, correct? But prove that you love your family. It just can't be done, as love is an emotion. And while there may be ways to measure emotions biochemically, couldn't what might be measured as 'love' actually just be a good Snickers bar before the test was hooked up? ;>)

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
The flood is a little different for me though, as there does seem to be scientific evidence that indicates a flood, and most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened and we are all descended from Noah's family, right?

And see, here we get into a discussion of what IS "Proof".

Irisheyes CLAIMS (yes we know she loves her CLAIMS) that there is "scientific evidence that indicates a flood". OK, I have scientific evidence that my basement was flooded a few years back. But how does that PROVE the world wide flood/ Ark myth?

most cultures have a flood story in thier history, which makes sense if it actually happened

"most cultures" were naturally started along water, as water is one of the major requirement for humans. So most civilizations will ahve some flood story from the past.

That these stories occupy different periods of time is totally ignored. As is the FACT that many other civilizations DO NOT have flood myths at all. Or that we have a continuous history of some civilizations existing thru the time the biblical flood supposedly happened and these people failed to notice that they were all killed in the flood. (Guess the memo did not go out?) Thus the "proof" turns into an "explanation" or REASON. You WANT to believe so are willing to take NON-proofs and pretend they ARE proofs. You are looking for and found an explanation or REASON, NOT a PROOF.

Now if in fact thee was a universal flood story which had consistant timing and did not conflict with other historical facts, then we might have a PROOF.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Freethinker, I love your passion! And I agree with you, it should be about proof. But again, as with what sanctus said, I think that most 'proof' is subjective.

Yes many "proofs" that people use are subjective. But that does not mean that PROOF can not or is not OBJECTIVE. Observable, repeatable, predictable, measurable.

You once were challenged to 'prove' you loved your mother. Your 'proof' was the testimony of your actions at her deathbed.

That was but one MINOR example. I stated that it would be possible to be hooked up to monitoring equip that would detect activities in specific regions of the brain associated with "love" emotions. This would make it OBJECTIVELY provable.

While I am NOT disputing your love for your mother, I don't think you offered objective 'proof'.

Not with the specific example you included. But that again does not mean it could not/ does not exist.

There is really now way to objectively 'prove' love,

Yes there is, you just reject accepting it.

just as there is no way for me to objectively 'prove' God.

Only because you can not prove what does not exist.

I can disprove some aspects of scientific theory, or at least justify my opinion of them with what constitutes 'proof' to me,

Once more showing that you do not understand the difference between PROOF and REASONS.

e.g. if someone did give a scientifically valid reason to question Evolution, that would NOT be proof that Creationism is correct. It would give a REASON for someone that wishes Creationism to be correct to accept Creationism. But it would not PROVE Creationism in any way.

but that still does not offer 'proof' of God.

All you can do so far is state that you have no proof. I accept the truth of that. But that does not mean that proof could not be given if a god actually did exist. In fact I would think it would be virtually impossible to disprove a god if one DID exist.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon. Gravity still exists on the moon, right? But how can it if the apple doesn't fall off the tree there? see, while the theory of gravity may not be subjective, it's verifiability can be questioned, depending on your place in the universe.

Whoa! Boy this explains a lot!

The laws of gravity that are identifiable on this planet are not as easily identifiable on others. Our gravity is not identical to that of the moon.

Move over Einstein! Irisheyes is going to rewrite General Relativity! I am humble in your presence. I would be pleased to set up a conference call between you and Steven Hawkings so you can set him straight on this!

Yes, some things can be proven objectively. The earth rotates around the sun. That is not subjective, is it? There is proof for that, correct?

Leave it to Christian Fundies. There is a group of Christians that offer a reward to anyone that can PROVE the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe. I can not find that site right now, but here is some Crazy Christians Convinced of earth Centricity!

The Earth is the Center of the Universe
"How could this be ? Welll, it's simply because because the Lord created the Earth and our Sun and all the stars (other suns) using the Earth as the Center of Creation. From this central hub, the galaxies are moving away causing a red-light shift, there is no other explanation."
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjor...thecenter.html

"Who Cares About Geocentrism? An Interview with Robert Sungenis

Most people believe that heliocentrism is an established fact of science, when in reality, it remains an unproven theory that has merely been touted as fact, much like the theory of Evolution. ..

Jacob: I see. So in your view, the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves around the earth?

Robert: Correct, but it is not my view alone. It is the generally accepted view among all geocentrists. I don't know anyone who does not hold to it.... Since Scripture says the earth is immobile, this would discount any diurnal motion (rotation on axis and revolution around the sun). "Diurnal motion" was also condemned as a "heresy" and "opposed to Scripture" by the Sacred Congregation of St. Robert Bellarmine, and confirmed by three popes.

Jacob: You've mentioned both Sacred Scripture and the Ordinary Magisterium - I take it that this is more than just a scientific hobby-horse with no theological ramifications?

Robert: To say the least. "
http://www.lumengentleman.com/index.asp?f=geocentrism

I have more at home.

Oh how fragile the Christian myth is. And how flexible the line's position is. Some of these sites "laugh" at young earthers. One said it was a person's attempt at their Andy Warhol 15 mins of fame by claiming it. And note they use the exact same fallacy approach to it as they use against Evolution.

So irisheyes, you are a Anti-Evolution, (assumed?) helio-centristic, old or young earther? Where do you draw the line between accepting factual Science and Christian Crazies?

But prove that you love your family. It just can't be done, as love is an emotion. And while there may be ways to measure emotions biochemically, couldn't what might be measured as 'love' actually just be a good Snickers bar before the test was hooked up? ;>)

No, a Snickers bar would have a very different signature. Besides the chocolate smear on the probes!

[IrishEyes]

Now if in fact thee was a universal flood story which had consistant timing and did not conflict with other historical facts, then we might have a PROOF.

Ok, my problem with this reasoning is that it goes against reality. I know, that doedn't make much sense, right? Bear wuth me, as I just had a great example of this when my brother was visiting this past weekend.

We were talking about different pet dogs that we have had. He remembered having one dog at a certain time, while I remembered having that dog at a different time. Now we both remember the dog, that is not in dispute. But which of us is correct with the time? Unfortunately, our mother is dead, and we have no real 'proof' as to who is right. Does that mean the dog was part of my imagination? Or his? Or was the dog a reality for both of us at different times? Or did one of us remember it wrong? The dog existed, we have pics of him (a historical proof). But my cousin has no recollection of this dog, so does that mean the dog wasn't in our home, even though the cousin didn't live with us?

Couldn't the Flood be the same? Different cultures have different timelines for the Flood. Some have no flood story. Does that prove that it didn't happen?

My 'proof' is studying different scientific opinions and research, and seeing how they fit with other theories. there ARE scientists that believe in the Flood, and they aren't all associated with Christian research groups. Many are, but not every single one of them. One of the following sites is by a Creationist, but it has scientific information included. Do I agree with every thing that every Christian scientist says? NO WAY. But I refuse to dismiss them as a group based on their religious beliefs.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-238.htm
http://custance.org/Library/Volume9/...ppendices.html

[IrishEyes]

No, a Snickers bar would have a very different signature. Besides the chocolate smear on the probes!

Woohoo!!! How could I ever forget the evidence of the chocolate smear on the probes? What, do you eat with, your elbows? Or are the probes connected to fingers and lips? Besides, I don't know about YOU, but *I* NEVER leave a single drop of chocolate. Why waste it??? Talk about a crime! That should be against the 10Cs!!

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Ok, my problem with this reasoning is that it goes against reality. I know, that doedn't make much sense, right?

YOu are correct, it doesn't make sense. Just as it does NOT go against reality. It is HISTORIC FACT that the various myths are from DIFFERENT SOCIETIES that lived at DIFFERENT TIMES and in DIFFERENT PLACES!

Different cultures have different timelines for the Flood. Some have no flood story. Does that prove that it didn't happen?

Yes. Why are you confused?

My 'proof' is studying different scientific opinions and research, and seeing how they fit with other theories. there ARE scientists that believe in the Flood, and they aren't all associated with Christian research groups.

OK, some mught be Jewish?

Many are, but not every single one of them. One of the following sites is by a Creationist, but it has scientific information included.

The IRC is a completely disreputable, non-scientific example of intentional lies and ignorance. They have no credibility what so ever. Plain and simple. There lies have been refuted over and over and they INTENTIONALLY refuse to acknowedge them.

Do I agree with every thing that every Christian scientist says? NO WAY. But I refuse to dismiss them as a group based on their religious beliefs.

Nor would I. I dismiss them on the basis of lack of scientific rigor.

http://custance.org/Library/Volume9/Part_I/Appendices.html

You said one was Christian suggesting and the other wasn't? Obviously anything from the IRC is Creationist drivel of the worst kind! The other is a blantant Christian and lacks ANY valid credentials in cosmological science. He invented a face mask! Big deal!

From his site

"Scientific Achievements:
developed and designed respirator mask, mask-sizing meter, anthropometric facial contour measuring device. and the Custance Sudorimeter for accurate measurement of levels of heat stress."

And this qualifies him to challenge ALL of the LEADING COSMOLOGICAL PHYSICISTS how?

And this was the best you could come up with!

Yes you can find any number of sources that claim the flood happened. Not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM has ANY credible authority to do so.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes
Woohoo!!! How could I ever forget the evidence of the chocolate smear on the probes? What, do you eat with, your elbows? Or are the probes connected to fingers and lips? Besides, I don't know about YOU, but *I* NEVER leave a single drop of chocolate. Why waste it??? Talk about a crime! That should be against the 10Cs!!

I'll tell you where I often wind up with chocolate other than my fingers (and it's NOT my elbows). Your welcome to lick it all off!