I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.
You can't prove that God doesn't exist through experience.
What do you think of that?
Jokers need not reply.
The burden of proof is entirely upon you, joseph. It isn't up to me to disprove the existence of god, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, then I have no choice but to doubt your claim.
Originally posted by rwingett The burden of proof is entirely upon you, joseph. It isn't up to me to disprove the existence of god, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't, then I have no choice but to doubt your claim.
I simply claim to know God through experience.
You can certianly choose to discount my claim, but how do you know my experience isn't genuine?
Originally posted by josephw I simply claim to know God through experience.
You can certianly choose to discount my claim, but how do you know my experience isn't genuine?
I don't. But I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove that your experience isn't genuine. It's up to you to prove that it is. The burden of proof lies entirely upon you. You may convince yourself of any number of things, but it isn't so easy to convince other people.
Originally posted by rwingett I don't. But I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove that your experience isn't genuine. It's up to you to prove that it is. The burden of proof lies entirely upon you. You may convince yourself of any number of things, but it isn't so easy to convince other people.
No, It isn't easy.
Let me try this line of reasoning.
I may be mistaken, but somewhere I picked up on that you are a lawyer. I don't know.
Either way. The entire issue hinges on whether or not the historical figure of Jesus was actually raised from the dead. Proof of Jesus' resurrection can be found in a court of law based on the testimony of the witnesses. Or so I've heard.
Originally posted by rwingett I don't. But I repeat, it isn't up to me to prove that your experience isn't genuine. It's up to you to prove that it is. The burden of proof lies entirely upon you. You may convince yourself of any number of things, but it isn't so easy to convince other people.
I tried this with you but you didn't reply. So I believe now it doesn't matter weather or not anyone present a proof for you or not as long as you believe that GOD doesn't exist.
Originally posted by ahosyney I tried this with you but you didn't reply. So I believe now it doesn't matter weather or not anyone present a proof for you or not as long as you believe that GOD doesn't exist.
You presented your arguments. I found them lacking.
I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I have no way of knowing if god exists. But I see no reason to believe that he does. I can't rule it out, but I do not believe it.
Originally posted by rwingett You presented your arguments. I found them lacking.
I don't believe that god doesn't exist. I have no way of knowing if god exists. But I see no reason to believe that he does. I can't rule it out, but I do not believe it.
You didn't tell me why it is lacking. And I didn't complete my talk. You asked me for an example that support my argument, and I did, but you didn't even give a negative comment.
I have no way of knowing if god exists.
I tried to show you a way but you didn't walk it with me. So don't claim that there is no way. You can claim that there are ways that I didn't like.
I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.
You can't prove that God doesn't exist through experience.
What do you think of that?
Jokers need not reply.
I can prove God exists to myself through experience though.
You just said "I can't prove that God does exist". So if we are not to take this as simple contradiction, what you really mean is the following: you're certain that you know God through experience and revelation, but you cannot offer me epistemic reasons that bear favorably on the de facto question of God's existence. But here's the problem: given the latter, I have absolutely no reason to take the former seriously (and I certainly do not share your God-indicating experiences). So I do not take you seriously here. How could I when you simply have no argument?
Originally posted by ahosyney You didn't tell me why it is lacking. And I didn't complete my talk. You asked me for an example that support my argument, and I did, but you didn't even give a negative comment.
[b] I have no way of knowing if god exists.
I tried to show you a way but you didn't walk it with me. So don't claim that there is no way. You can claim that there are ways that I didn't like.[/b]
Actually, I have no idea what conversation you're referring to.
There are no convincing ways for you to demonstrate your claim. You can toss out anything you want, but it doesn't mean it's a good argument.
Originally posted by ahosyney [b]Actually, I have no idea what conversation you're referring to. I'm talking about the PM
There are no convincing ways for you to demonstrate your claim
How do you know? How can you be sure of this?
You are wrong!!
You can toss out anything you want, but it doesn't mean it's a good argument.
I never said it is a good argument, but you can't say it is a bad argument without investigating it.[/b]
Oh, that. I felt more like you were stalking me that debating me. I didn't think your argument was worth my time. If you want to present it here, then go ahead. Don't PM me. Not that I'll pay any more attention to it here, though.
Originally posted by rwingett Oh, that. I felt more like you were stalking me that debating me. I didn't think your argument was worth my time. If you want to present it here, then go ahead. Don't PM me. Not that I'll pay any more attention to it here, though.
Sure, I will not PM you again. It doesn't worth it. I just felt you may be interested. Good luck
Proof of the non-existence of God
30 Dec '08 14:26
Back to Top