I will prove god's existence if....

[avatar6v7]

you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.
So post away and we will see if we prove or disprove anything by the end of it.

[Dave Allen]

I don't know if it would convince me, exactly, but any arguement that defined what God was and explained without resort to fiat, analogy or browbeating why that particular definition of God was better than all the alternatives then I would certainly respect it.

The argument would have to (for me personally) stay away from chestnuts such as how morality can't exist without God; why there must be a first cause and why that first cause must be God; and wouldn't everything just be a lot nicer if we were part of a divine plan incorporating such things as heaven and eternal life.

The proposer of the arguement would then be able to defend his points against any objections raised.

This would not be "proof" exactly, but it would greatly impress me.

[xris]

Well you know my request just go for it?

[Holiday20310401]

Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.

[xris]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.

you cant start an answer with im not going to answer...proving a negative is not a necessity but proving your belief is ....otherwise its a negative..

[avatar6v7]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I don't know if it would convince me, exactly, but any arguement that defined what God was and explained without resort to fiat, analogy or browbeating why that particular definition of God was better than all the alternatives then I would certainly respect it.

The argument would have to (for me personally) stay away from chestnuts such as how morality can't exist without God; why there must be a first cause and why that first cause must be God; and wouldn't everything just be a lot nicer if we were part of a divine plan incorporating such things as heaven and eternal life.

The proposer of the arguement would then be able to defend his points against any objections raised.

This would not be "proof" exactly, but it would greatly impress me.

fair point so I will answer it. This is not a proof, but I hope it impresses you.

The universe is made up of that which cannot be seen. In a material sense this means tiny organisms, atoms and invisbile proccesses. However the most significant things are beyond any physical observation- they must be discovered using the mind, using reason. The things that we hold most important, most dear are ideas. Love, Hope, Kindness, Charity, Justice- invisible. Yet they are not touchable, not within our grasp, not physically there. Do you think that Love isn't real? No. Infact in terms of importance love is held to be more important than the material. The realm of thoughts, of ideaologies, of ideas, of dreams is more important than the material. It is founded on and requires the material, as it's framework, but all the most significant of human interactions and events are mostly invisible existing in our hearts, minds and souls. That we live in a world of invisible non-physical entities is more true than saying we live in the material world. In this argument God is not a proven fact, but he is as justifiable a belief as a belief in love, or in a politcal system or any other belief. The conceptual world is based in the physical world, and god is the highest possible, greatest possible thing that the human mind can conceive- he is that which justifies the world of the conceptual and the material.
I have alot more justifications to make, but as you haven't really answered the premise of the thread, I can only really offer a prelimianry explanation.
Not being evasive here, but I need some basis for the kind of proof that would satisfy you before I can give it you.

[avatar6v7]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Avatar, God is a conundrum; this is enforced through the fact that we cannot prove or disprove its existence.

One thing we can be certain of is that transcendence just doesn't matter physically, or objectively. Spiritually sure, subjectively... I'm not going to mention what I think anymore.

you say that god cannot be proven/disproven. what nature of proof do you accept?

[xris]

You cant prove anything by starting with assumptions...as i said all these theological debates are based on the preconception we are talking about a valid theory of gods existance..

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by avatar6v7

you say that god cannot be proven/disproven. what nature of proof do you accept?

Empirical and rational. I mean ok... what is transcendence... does this fit God... and can we therefore prove God's existence?

I guess you're right though... it depends on what we view as valid proofs. Emotional frenzies work in this situation, sure.

And Xris, I just did answer. If you can invalidate my answer then go ahead, empirically (relevantly) speaking.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by xris

you cant start an answer with im not going to answer...proving a negative is not a necessity but proving your belief is ....otherwise its a negative..

This makes no sense whatsoever. I don't have to prove a negative, but I do have to prove my belief, otherwise it's a negative... but I don't have to prove a negative...? What are you trying to say here?