is there such a thing as concrete proof?
-
is there or is there not? i guess its impt to 1st define wad we mean by concrete proof...would like to hear from the forumers here 1st b4 i give my comments...
-
the motive of tis thread is to seel the definition of concrete proof from those who ask for concrete proof for God's existence...wad do u mean by concrete?
-
Originally posted by despondent:
is there or is there not? i guess its impt to 1st define wad we mean by concrete proof…would like to hear from the forumers here 1st b4 i give my comments…
concrete proof ==> i once step into a cement that is still wet. it eventually harden to concrete. my shoe print in the concrete is proof i stepped in the cement
-
I cant define concrete proof quantitatively. Perhaps my opinion of "concrete proof" is something which will make me believe, with much assertion, that the phenomenon / event (eg. existence of god in this case) is true and is logically reasonable. It does not encapsulate superstition (eg. I prayed and it worked, therefore God exists etc), and half-truths and "half-superstitions" like believing the bible whole-heartedly when its an enigma as to who wrote it in the first place. For there to be concrete proof that God exist, I have to have some form of tangible interation with him, and not a mere figure that exists in the mind. And yes, faith doesnt count. For me to believe the bible can be taken as the "biblical truth", I have to verify that whatever is penned is true, which no one can. Intangible / unexplicable experiences with no sound scientific backing doesnt count, thank you.
-
what is "faith" ?
-
Do you need a concrete proof for hard evedence?
-
thanks for replying gohby...actually, i feel tat the type of "concrete proof" u r toking abt is more abt reasonability. some ppl will argue tat nth on earth can ever be concretely proven n tat includes even ur own existence. hence, the qn u shld ask is: is it more reasonable to believe in a creator who created the whole universe or is it more reasonable to believe tat the whole universe existed by chance? by chance usually implies sth to do wif evolution.. i can see u r someone who onli believe the things u see. seeing is believing to u although like i said earlier, there r some who wil argue tat juz cos u see sth does nt mean it realli exist. many things in life r "proven" to us thru personal experiences. while u have seen certain things in life, i may nt have seen the same things as u. so do i conclude tat those things u have seen dun exist? since its down to personal experiences, i can onli tell u tat nobody on earth can "prove" to u tat God exist since ppl who believe in Him believe either thru faith or thru personal encounters. the truth of the matter is u cun verify such encounters as they r meant to be personal, onli for tat person himself/herself. so juz cos we cun verify them, do we say those ppl r bluffing? wad "proof" do we have tat they r bluffing? its a pity u didnt live 2000yrs ago or u would have seen jesus himself. then u wouldnt be asking for "concrete proofs" for God's existence. in fact, no one can ever see God the Father. we can onli see God the Son at the very most. His next visit to earth will be at the 2nd coming. anyway, do tink thru wad i have said n if u have anymore qns, feel free to ask them here. i will try my best to answer them...cheers!!!
-
Originally posted by despondent:"actually, i feel tat the type of “concrete proof” u r toking abt is more abt reasonability. some ppl will argue tat nth on earth can ever be concretely proven n tat includes even ur own existence"
I cant quite grasp the concept of me being non-existent. If I am non-existent, these words wouldnt be appearing right now. I think, therefore I am. Whichever the case is, I dont see the link between this and the existence of God.
"the qn u shld ask is: is it more reasonable to believe in a creator who created the whole universe or is it more reasonable to believe tat the whole universe existed by chance? by chance usually implies sth to do wif evolution.."
You asked me which is more reasonable, whether the universe appeared by chance or was created by God (notice I didnt specify which God here). I think this is a multi-faceted question which cannot be simplified and generalised into 2 options, as you had suggested: One, either God created the world, or two, the universe was created by chance.
There are other options that I can raise. The universe could have been created by some forces, unknown to us, finite human beings at this point of time. In the future, the birth of the universe may be revealed, just that science has not reached that level of advancement yet.
Two, even if I believe that God created the world,. it is very subjective as to which God am I to believe? The Christian God, Allah, Hindu Gods, or an amalgamation of all them? Please do not quote "I am the only way to Father" or something to the same effect from the Bible, because that is a feeble attempt to convince someone to believe that the Christian God exist.
To me, the summed probability of other 3 options of:-
1. Scientific advancement hasnt reached the level to reach comprehension about how the universe was created
2. Other Gods could have been the real "God", or it could have been the working of all "Gods"
3. Evolution
is certainly more reasonable than the Christian God creating the whole universe.
"i can see u r someone who onli believe the things u see. seeing is believing to u although like i said earlier, there r some who wil argue tat juz cos u see sth does nt mean it realli exist."
You are not accurate in saying that "i can see u r someone who onli believe the things u see". That is untrue. I cant see my pancreas, heart, lungs, etc but I believe they are there. I cant see atoms colliding or electrons being transferred during a chemical reaction, but I believe it is true. I believe it is true because there is unequivocal evidence pointing to their existence, unlike the "existence of God".
"many things in life r “proven” to us thru personal experiences. while u have seen certain things in life, i may nt have seen the same things as u. so do i conclude tat those things u have seen dun exist? since its down to personal experiences, i can onli tell u tat nobody on earth can “prove” to u tat God exist since ppl who believe in Him believe either thru faith or thru personal encounters. the truth of the matter is u cun verify such encounters as they r meant to be personal, onli for tat person himself/herself. so juz cos we cun verify them, do we say those ppl r bluffing? wad “proof” do we have tat they r bluffing?"
I certainly did not say, insinuate, or imply that those who believe in God are fabricating their own experiences or "bluffing". I mostly believe in those personal accounts of "God appearing, yadayada". However, as to whether they were hallucinating or having some distorted thoughts at that point of them, I guess thats subjective. Like I said, those personal accounts could just be just a figure appearing in the mind, as easy as that. That doesn't prove he exists.
"its a pity u didnt live 2000yrs ago or u would have seen jesus himself. then u wouldnt be asking for “concrete proofs” for God’s existence. in fact, no one can ever see God the Father. we can onli see God the Son at the very most. His next visit to earth will be at the 2nd coming."
Had I been born 2000 years ago in Jerusalem at the right time, I would only be able to tell:-
1. Whether did Jesus exist in the first place?
2. If he did, was he just a commoner?
3. Whether the witness were right when they see Jesus being revived.
IMO, I would NOT be able to say conclusively that I can see Jesus himself. By the way, I do not believe there is going to be a second coming, as much as I dont believe in superstitions, numerous apocalyptic events that were supposed to happen (Armageddon, etc). They sound more like a child's tale to me.
Thanks a lot for your amicable reply!
-
ok...i tink i need to elaborate wad i realli mean when i say reasonability n concrete proof...by tis i give u tis scenario... assuming i have nvr crossed a road b4, nw i am standing at the pavement wif u...i ask u: prove to me tat if i cross the road when the green man comes on n all the vehicles stop tat i wun get knocked down by any of them. nw how r u going to prove to me? if u r juz going to cross the road urself n when u get to the other end, tell me: see? i have crossed the road, so i have proven to u. my reply wil be: sorry...u have onli proven to me tat YOU wun get knocked down if YOU cross the road...BUT u havent proven tat I wun get knocked down if I crossed the road...the onli way i can prove to myself is by crossing the road myself n see if i get knocked down...likewise, for the existence of God, how to prove to u unless u experience Him urself??? when i say tat u cun prove ur own existence, wad i meant was u cun prove ur existence to others. theres a philosophy tat argues tat even though we see ourselves, we could stil be a figment of our own imagination. nw tis sounds absurd of cuz...but notice absurd it may be, the ppl ard can choose to deny seeing u at all, then wad r u gonna say? r u gonna say they r mad??? well maybe, but notice u can prove to urself tat u exist but u cun prove to others tat u exist. of cuz most if nt all ppl will nt deny ur existence. but they do so cos its reasonable for them to trust tat since they can see u, hence u exist...likewise some ppl, thru personal encounters wif God has proven to themselves tat He exists but they cun prove tat to u since u do not have such encounters...anyway, if u stil dun get wad i mean, feel free to discuss further...
-
so from the above, its reasonability tat we shld be discussing abt n nt concrete proof...i once spoke to a pst abt tis issue...he shared wif me tat its all abt reasonability...while he stood there toking to me, he cannot prove to me at tat time tat if he went hm, he wun find his wife sleeping wif another man. all he can do is to tell me tat based on his r/s wif his wife, its very reasonable for him to believe n tell me tat his wife will nt be found sleeping wif another man when he returned hm... even when u say tat there r overwhelming evidence to prove certain things exist...has it ever occurred to u tat these evidence could be all wrong??? ah, nw it seems rather impossible for all the evidence to be wrong. after all, we r toking abt plenty of evidences tat comes from many sources n span over centuries. but can we EVER rule out the possibility tat all evidences could be wrong? can we be 100% certain tat the evidence r correct? u see, concrete proofs points to 100% accuracy...can u guarantee tat none of the evidence or even wad u can see is 100% true n accurate? if u can see my pt, then u will noe tat its nt abt concrete proof we shld be discussing abt but rather its abt reasonability...
-
I don't think there is
-
x2...well said...theres no such thing as concrete proof...
-
oh yes...one more thing gohby...b4 we even discuss which God is the so-called "rite" God...u must 1st make a stand whether u believe tat a creator exists...cos if u do not believe in the existence of God then theres no need to discuss which God is the "rite" one...
-
I dont think you get what I meant. If you had referred to my definition of "concrete proof" a few posts up, you would have realised that "concrete proof" is more about being logically reasonable and something which could be used to substantiate an event / outcome with assertion. You misunderstood what I perceived "concrete proof" to be. I never said all the evidence are 100% accurate. (Pls refer to my posts above)
Could you kindly address all the points I brought forth in the last post point by point? Its not helpful in a discussion venturing into a new frontier + giving all your opinions and comments, leaving the all other points unanswered.
Like I said, things are not as clear cut as black and white. Same goes for the question whether I believe God exists. Personally, I believe 50% that God exists, and 50% that God doesnt exist. Out of 50% in my belief that God exists, I do not believe Christian God is the right one. Where does that land me then? :D Why isnt there a need to discuss which God is the right one then?
-
there is a need to discuss which God is the rite one...i said tat in my previous post...but b4 we do tat, u must 1st be make a stand if God exist...then i need to ask u how do u define God? does God means creator or wad???
-
then perhaps u may wanna share y u tink its nt the christian God n which god do u tink it is if there is indeed a God...
-
first you have to define if this thread is purely philosophical or logical
-
Originally posted by despondent:
u must 1st be make a stand if God exist…
Havent I stated my stand in my previous post?
"Personally, I believe 50% that God exists, and 50% that God doesnt exist. Out of 50% in my belief that God exists, I do not believe Christian God is the right one."
Why do I have to repeat myself, yet again?
Before I share about why I dont think Christian God is the right one (Venturing into new frontier), I would like to see my previous points addressed first. Or else we will be overwhelmed with numerous points, but each point was left unanswered.
-
gohby...i do have reasonable arguments abt God but u must 1st be able to meet me at a common ground 1st...the reason y i keep asking u for definitions is cos many misunderstandings n disagreements arise due to differences in definitions. unless we can come to a consensus abt the definition of God, the discussion cun start...besides if u r gonna start of wif a 50-50 stand on God n atheism, then i am very sorry, i cun help u much cos most of my reasonable arguments start off wif the person believing tat theres a God...maybe u would like to go to www.peterkreeft.com n listen to The Argument for a 1st cause...cheers!!!
-
one more thing u must note, gohby...whoever u discuss tis issue wif made provide u wif logical reasons for the existence of God but note tat wads logical to them may nt be logical to u...i tink u have to be clear tat diff ppl r convinced in diff ways thru diff set of reasoning...likewise, i can share the logical reasons y i believe in God wif u but u may nt find them logical... one final tot, if u tink tat a proper logical reason has to be one tat u cun refute then i am sorry to say tat such reasoning doesnt exist...cos we r imperfect human beings n theres no way we can produce an argument tat is 100% flawless...
-
Originally posted by despondent:
gohby…i do have reasonable arguments abt God but u must 1st be able to meet me at a common ground 1st…the reason y i keep asking u for definitions is cos many misunderstandings n disagreements arise due to differences in definitions. unless we can come to a consensus abt the definition of God, the discussion cun start…besides if u r gonna start of wif a 50-50 stand on God n atheism, then i am very sorry, i cun help u much cos most of my reasonable arguments start off wif the person believing tat theres a God…maybe u would like to go to www.peterkreeft.com n listen to The Argument for a 1st cause…cheers!!!
Yes, I agree with you in almost everything you've said, but why is there a need that we have start off with a 100% belief that there God exists before a proper discussion can take place? So if I dont believe whole-heartedly that God exists, does that render your reasonable arguments ineffective to me?
-
theres a high chance u wil render wad i say as ineffective...tis may occur on 2 grounds...1) most of my logical reasoning starts off wif the person believing theres a God/creator...but dunno which one to believe in...2) like i said earlier, wad may seem logical to me may nt be logical to u... u may have heard tis b4 but i am stil going to say it...thru my 10yrs as a christian, i have nt met anyone who became a christian thru logically understanding the existence of God n why the christian God is the rite one. in fact, i have met ppl who got more confused abt God when they tried to search for logical reasonings to explain His existence. u may nt like tis but when it comes to believing in any god, faith must play a part...in fact, to believe in sth often involves faith...knowledgeable christians i have met usually became christian without much logical reasoning n then became very knowledgeable after they converted. the interesting thing is as they grew in knowledge, they didnt get more confused. tis is unlike those who sought for logical reasoning b4 becoming christian. of cuz u can choose to disagree wif tis, but tats wad i have observed in these past 10yrs...
-
the main reason y my reasoning must begin wif the other person 1st believing theres a God is cos i am nt scientifically inclined...hence, i cun provide gd enuff reasoning to refute evolution. i do noe of ppl who can though. all i can say is tat evolution does nt operate on the law of cause n effect n it cannot explain the original existence of emotions n laws. in fact, from wad i noe, evolution violates science in certain ways...tats juz abt wad i noe abt evolution n y i cannot stand...i have lots more to say abt creation of cuz, but it may be ineffective for u cos u do not start of by believing theres a God...
-
Originally posted by despondent:
theres a high chance u wil render wad i say as ineffective…tis may occur on 2 grounds…1) most of my logical reasoning starts off wif the person believing theres a God/creator…but dunno which one to believe in…2) like i said earlier, wad may seem logical to me may nt be logical to u…
u may have heard tis b4 but i am stil going to say it…thru my 10yrs as a christian, i have nt met anyone who became a christian thru logically understanding the existence of God n why the christian God is the rite one. in fact, i have met ppl who got more confused abt God when they tried to search for logical reasonings to explain His existence. u may nt like tis but when it comes to believing in any god, faith must play a part…in fact, to believe in sth often involves faith…knowledgeable christians i have met usually became christian without much logical reasoning n then became very knowledgeable after they converted. the interesting thing is as they grew in knowledge, they didnt get more confused. tis is unlike those who sought for logical reasoning b4 becoming christian. of cuz u can choose to disagree wif tis, but tats wad i have observed in these past 10yrs…
So may I replace the euphemistic word "faith", with some not-so-nice word like "superstition", and thereby conclude that those who converted do so on the basis of superstition? Of course there are numerous people who feel spiritually fulfilled after converting, but what about those who don't? You are painting a one-sided and impeccable scenario here. Are there no people who "degenerated" upon conversion? And for those who feel spiritually fulfilled, like you, I guess, is taking a step into the religion a mere runaway from reality, or is it something really true? Just a thought for you to muse about.
Had the arguments against evolution been strong and convincing enough, people would have dismissed the theory of evolution. Whichever the case is, scientific information is always in a constant flux. For all you know, in the future, the evolution theory could be improved on, abolished and replaced with a new theory, blah blah blah. Maybe there would be evidence to show wthether God (and which kind of God) exists or not. So you dont need to take the evolution theory as the only source of explanation to the creation of life. Its rather inaccurate to say I dont believe in God, btw. Its perhaps your lack of scientific inclination which prod you to seek non-scientific explanations for the creation of life. There is nothing wrong with that, to each his own anyway!
Cheers! :)
-
those looking for logical reasoning/concrete proof for the existence of God...u can look up www.peterkreeft.com...thanks