MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 I'm still not seeing it. :shrug: Are you able to even comprehend our arguments? If so could you summarize them and show how I have not refuted their points? I doubt you have such a comprehension level. Feel free to prove my doubts unfounded.
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 Call two theories empirically equivalent just in case exactly the same conclusions about observable phenomena can be deduced from each. Let T be any theory which posits unobservable phenomena. There will always be infinitely many theories which are empirically equivalent to T but which are such that each differs from T, and from all the rest, in what it says about unobservable phenomena (for formalized theories, this is an elementary theorem of mathematical logic). Evidence in favor of T's conception of unobservable phenomena ("theoretical entities") would have to rule out the conceptions represented by each of those other theories. But, since T is empirically equivalent to each of them, they all make exactly the same predictions about the results of observations or experiments. So, no evidence could favor one of them over the others. Thus, at best, we could have evidence in favor of what all these theories have in common--their consequences about "observables"--we could confirm that they are all empirically adequate--but we could not have any evidence favoring T's conception of unobservable theoretical entities. Since T was any theory about unobservables, knowledge of unobservable phenomena is impossible My proof contains "theory" on observables that are not explained by materialistic theories... such as the causal mechanism for mind matter interactions (psychic functioning). Further, my proof on consciousness being a fundamental property of reality makes the mind matter mechanism a necessity.
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 You know, I just have to ask this question. What makes you think that your belief in God is more valid than one man's belief in Brahma, or belief in Zeus? Couldn't your alleged "proofs" also just as well support the existence of Hindu and Greek gods?
C1ay Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 I can prove the Christian God as rigorously as I can prove the nature of God... We're still waiting for your rigorous proof. Can you back up this claim or not?
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 C1ay says; Dear MySiddhi, You have received a warning at Science Forums. Reason:-------Aggressive Attack If all you can do is attack people you won't be here long. You should put more energy into proving your claim. It is your burden to support your claims, not someone else's to refute them.------- Original Post:http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/15497-proof-god-post230893.html#post230893 Is "InfiniteNow" allowed to call me arrogant but I am not allowed to ask said person to demonstrate comprehension of the arguments?
Overdog Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 My proof contains "theory" on observables that are not explained by materialistic theories... such as the causal mechanism for mind matter interactions (psychic functioning). Further, my proof on consciousness being a fundamental property of reality makes the mind matter mechanism a necessity. Whatever your so-called "proof" contains, it isn't relevant to the fact god is unobservable.
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 You know, I just have to ask this question. What makes you think that your belief in God is more valid than one man's belief in Brahma, or belief in Zeus? Couldn't your alleged "proofs" also just as well support the existence of Hindu and Greek gods? My proof supports Monopantheism which can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not).
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 We're still waiting for your rigorous proof. Can you back up this claim or not? If I have picture posting rights I will start such in another thread. Is that agreeable to you? And could you please tell me; What are the requirements for such a proof (to you)?
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 My proof supports Monopantheism which can be understood to be the foundational belief of all major religions (subconscious or not). You didn't quite answer my question. Why can't it be used to support pantheism, or any of the other religious beliefs that are typically written off as "paganism"? They do, after all, use similar reasoning and similar metaphysical arguments for support.
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 And could you please tell me; What are the requirements for such a proof (to you)? No anecdotes. We want, specifically, a way to test experimentally for the existence of God. And an experiment that will not give us any ambiguous results. And an experiment that can be repeated.
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 My proof contains "theory" on observables that are not explained by materialistic theories... such as the causal mechanism for mind matter interactions (psychic functioning). Further, my proof on consciousness being a fundamental property of reality makes the mind matter mechanism a necessity. Whatever your so-called "proof" contains, it isn't relevant to the fact god is unobservable. If divine nature includes psychic functioning God is obviously observable... now isn't he?
MySiddhi Posted July 28, 2008 Author Report Posted July 28, 2008 You didn't quite answer my question. Why can't it be used to support pantheism, or any of the other religious beliefs that are typically written off as "paganism"? They do, after all, use similar reasoning and similar metaphysical arguments for support. You point is valid as I have implicitly agreed with it.
Overdog Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 If divine nature includes psychic functioning God is obviously observable... now isn't he? Absolutely not. Why can't I see him? Show him to me!
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 You point is valid as I have implicitly agreed with it. Yes, I know. But you still haven't answered my original question. What makes your belief in God more valid than any other religious beliefs? Why God? Why not Zeus, or Brahma, or the Great Spirit? They are all inherently unverifiable and unobservable, so how then do we know that those "proofs" you gave us aren't full of crap, or could just as well be ascribed to something else entirely?
Reaper Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 If divine nature includes psychic functioning God is obviously observable... now isn't he? Same thing applies here. How can we verify this? What the hell is psychic functioning?
Overdog Posted July 28, 2008 Report Posted July 28, 2008 MySiddhi: If you cannot refute the argument, then the only way your "Proof" has a chance is if you can show god is observable. You can't do this. Psychic visions and claims that YOU see him don't cut it. You are a false prophet. That's all there is to it.
Recommended Posts