|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:25 pm
Is there a way to validate god's existence?
I mean, take for example the fact that a lot of the more down to earth religious people say that religion is built upon faith correct? But, if that is the case, then doesn't that mean that we're believing in something that may or may not be true? I realize that that is exactly what faith really is , a belief in something. But I feel that there are also many aspects of religion that just feel like they've been created or altered to increase faith while decreasing the moral value of the story (in the case of some of the stories of any of the books)
So, can we validate god's (singular or plural) existence? And if we can, are we able to refute other religion's gods? even if we keep their values at core as the same as our own religions?
Simply questions that require a little thought and self examination.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:43 pm
It depends on the person and exactly what you mean when you say validate.
Some people require little validation-though validation nonetheless- to believe in whatever they might.
Perhaps some strange happenstance occurred that spurred them on. Something profound, maybe.
Others, it takes more validation, if they're actually really seeking validation at all. I've known more than one or two people who asked after such a thing, to hear the reason that someone believed what they did, but they just as well didn't listen, not in truth.
There are countless ways to validate any God's existence, I should think.
Will those ways always work for everyone, or even present themselves to everyone?
Of course not.
Personal circumstance and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:13 pm
Well, there's a difference between validating and proving.
To validate a person's belief, all that is needed is a tiny bit of "proof," enough for the person to say, "Yes. See, I am right."
Now, proving this existance, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is completely different. It would need to occur in a scientific manner, thus it would need to be repeatable. Most occurances involving religion...miracles, the wrath of God, etc... are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:53 pm
Ah but we aren't validating a person's belief, but what belief is in. A single persons belief isn't in question, rather the global concept of that which is believed in.
Can we prove god exists? Maybe. Would people like our answer if we found that god(s) were false? No. Would people be happy if we found that god(s) were true? also no.
Even if we can validate the existence of god (or the opposite there of). (not validate a person's belief) it's not something that we'd be repeating, and it wouldn't make for a very compelling argument considering the responses would mostly be those very much opposed to the thought either of the existence, or lack of, God(s)
Not to mention, we never prove anything, we just reaffirm our hypothesis, proving would mean knowing that this is a constant and it won't change. that's why we never prove things, we just grasp things as we know them now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:43 am
Well, then I'll add to my response.
Based on the current science we have, no we cannot prove or validate the existance of any form of diety.
But also, in order to "prove" anything in any acceptable manner, it would need to occur more than just once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:11 am
in the eyes of science, god wouldn't exist, their theorys are based on proof only. No proof of god's existence. *to them anyways*
in the eyes of religion, its just faith but have no proof to prove it. *they never had any proof i don't think. well i never seen them have any*
in my eyes i believe in both. it makes everything much more sensable when they are put together. *don't feel like going into detail.*
but it just depends on the person. Nobody is the same, if they were then we wouldn't have all the knoledge and stuff we have today. *probably*
also, nice siggy wellwisher :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:28 pm
I agree with klonoa on the fact that people should take both into consideration when pondering topis such as this. People should think on the scientific and religious scale at all times, I believe, but I have a few more things to point out.
First, I want a few words cleared up, so we're all on the same page. These are the definitions I'm going by here. All are found on dictionary.refrance.com 3nodding
FACT: /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
2.something known to exist or to have happened.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
TRUTH /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA
–noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
8.ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
Okay, now that we have those out of our way, I would like to bring something else to light that few people will put together:
A fact is the truth, and by the reversal property, the truth is fact, and the truth is an idea or thing that is generally accepted as right or not incorrect.
I say that by combining these definitions, and then looking at the world as a whole, we can easily prove the existance of some form of higher being. You can look the numbers up on your own time, seeing as it's far too late for me to stay on much longer, but the number of people who believe in a higher power of some sort greatly outnumbers those who don't believe in anything else. Thus it is a generally accepted idea. Thus it is a truth, and the truth is...?
Fact.
In my eyes, this is what makes the most sence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 10:07 pm
DvnT I agree with klonoa on the fact that people should take both into consideration when pondering topis such as this. People should think on the scientific and religious scale at all times, I believe, but I have a few more things to point out.
First, I want a few words cleared up, so we're all on the same page. These are the definitions I'm going by here. All are found on dictionary.refrance.com 3nodding
FACT: /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
2.something known to exist or to have happened.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
TRUTH /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA
–noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
8.ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
Okay, now that we have those out of our way, I would like to bring something else to light that few people will put together:
A fact is the truth, and by the reversal property, the truth is fact, and the truth is an idea or thing that is generally accepted as right or not incorrect.
I say that by combining these definitions, and then looking at the world as a whole, we can easily prove the existance of some form of higher being. You can look the numbers up on your own time, seeing as it's far too late for me to stay on much longer, but the number of people who believe in a higher power of some sort greatly outnumbers those who don't believe in anything else. Thus it is a generally accepted idea. Thus it is a truth, and the truth is...?
Fact.
In my eyes, this is what makes the most sence. People also believed that the world was flat, and to them it was truth and fact. It is now the truth and fact that the world is a sphere. So, just because everyone believes something, doesn't really make it true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:09 pm
Deppfan Teague DvnT I agree with klonoa on the fact that people should take both into consideration when pondering topis such as this. People should think on the scientific and religious scale at all times, I believe, but I have a few more things to point out.
First, I want a few words cleared up, so we're all on the same page. These are the definitions I'm going by here. All are found on dictionary.refrance.com 3nodding
FACT: /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
2.something known to exist or to have happened.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
TRUTH /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA
–noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
8.ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
Okay, now that we have those out of our way, I would like to bring something else to light that few people will put together:
A fact is the truth, and by the reversal property, the truth is fact, and the truth is an idea or thing that is generally accepted as right or not incorrect.
I say that by combining these definitions, and then looking at the world as a whole, we can easily prove the existance of some form of higher being. You can look the numbers up on your own time, seeing as it's far too late for me to stay on much longer, but the number of people who believe in a higher power of some sort greatly outnumbers those who don't believe in anything else. Thus it is a generally accepted idea. Thus it is a truth, and the truth is...?
Fact.
In my eyes, this is what makes the most sence. People also believed that the world was flat, and to them it was truth and fact. It is now the truth and fact that the world is a sphere. So, just because everyone believes something, doesn't really make it true. According to the definition of truth, it does. Everything is based on perspective, if you look at it. We only say that something is true, becuase of what we know at that time. If you look at numbers six and nine under truth, it says "or accepted fact;" accepted being the operative word, and then again in nine when it says "agreement with a standard." The standard is the general rule; which, as a general rule, people believe there is a higher power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:49 pm
DvnT Deppfan Teague DvnT I agree with klonoa on the fact that people should take both into consideration when pondering topis such as this. People should think on the scientific and religious scale at all times, I believe, but I have a few more things to point out.
First, I want a few words cleared up, so we're all on the same page. These are the definitions I'm going by here. All are found on dictionary.refrance.com 3nodding
FACT: /fækt/ Show Spelled[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
2.something known to exist or to have happened.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened.
TRUTH /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA
–noun,pluraltruths /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
6.an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
8.ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience.
9.agreement with a standard or original.
Okay, now that we have those out of our way, I would like to bring something else to light that few people will put together:
A fact is the truth, and by the reversal property, the truth is fact, and the truth is an idea or thing that is generally accepted as right or not incorrect.
I say that by combining these definitions, and then looking at the world as a whole, we can easily prove the existance of some form of higher being. You can look the numbers up on your own time, seeing as it's far too late for me to stay on much longer, but the number of people who believe in a higher power of some sort greatly outnumbers those who don't believe in anything else. Thus it is a generally accepted idea. Thus it is a truth, and the truth is...?
Fact.
In my eyes, this is what makes the most sence. People also believed that the world was flat, and to them it was truth and fact. It is now the truth and fact that the world is a sphere. So, just because everyone believes something, doesn't really make it true. According to the definition of truth, it does. Everything is based on perspective, if you look at it. We only say that something is true, becuase of what we know at that time. If you look at numbers six and nine under truth, it says "or accepted fact;" accepted being the operative word, and then again in nine when it says "agreement with a standard." The standard is the general rule; which, as a general rule, people believe there is a higher power. Something Can't merely be true because of a fact. Truth is far more complicated. K= JTB Stands for to know something we have to have Justified True Belief. It means we have to first believe something, then it has to be True for All (has a lot of complicated definitions) and then we have to be able to Justify it. (typically Scientific Theory) So it's not enough to believe something is true to call it knowledge. with what we have now we can only believe in the existence of god. We can't call it Truth because not all believe it and it is not known pass belief. and we surely can't Justify it. Too conclude it seems believing in a God(s) purely relies on faith. If we want to say it's Validated that people can believe in a God then we can we just can't call it a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 1:01 am
John Wesley suggested to rely on four things at the same time:
reason (think things through, use your head, do not get too emotional)
scripture (but study carefully and do not just choose what suits you)
tradition (which means wise people who lived before you did; he included classical nonchristian writers and thinkers here too, such as Plato)
and personal experience (which includes your own insights, dreams, and conversations with wise friends.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
