My life

[giblets]

No one said people don't have relationships with God. The claim was that they are having a relationship with an imaginary being. This is equivalent to claiming that someone's relationship with a ghost is a relationship with an imaginary being.

[Jon Miller]

I was showing that your 'proof' would also prove that God is real.

JM

[MRT144]

You could replace that with the view that God doesn't exist just as easily.

But for some reason atheists like attacking Christians much more than Christians like attack atheists...

JM

Athiests are freedom fighters against Christian tyranny.

[giblets]

No, it would prove that relationships with 'God' exist. In fact, it proves the existence of thousands of different belief systems, and these belief systems can't all be true because they contradict each other, which proves that people can hold beliefs that don't reflect reality. Relationships with Zeus were real, but that doesn't mean Zeus was real.

[Jon Miller]

If I have a relationship with my neighbor, the community office has a relationship with the person they think leaves the gate open (but it isn't left open, it blows open), and the IRS has a relationship with the person they think has 10 kids.... doesn't mean that the person doesn't exist (even though she doesn't leave the gate open and doesn't have 10 kids).

Maybe my other neighbor even thinks they are friends with this person, but aren't because they continually let their dogs poop in her yard.

JM

[MRT144]

If you start saying 'scientifically proof' (With all the assumptions and limitations of science), then suddenly you have difficulty proving the existence of things which most people believe in (like most people believe in God) like Love.

JM

At least we can determine that love (and emotions) has a basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies and we can see evidence of love in the behavior from other people or pets.

[Jon Miller]

No, it would prove that relationships with 'God' exist. In fact, it proves the existence of thousands of different belief systems, and these belief systems can't all be true because they contradict each other, which proves that people can hold beliefs that don't reflect reality. Relationships with Zeus were real, but that doesn't mean Zeus was real.

Just accept that your philosophy is weak.

When you think proof you think science.

JM

[Jon Miller]

At least we can determine that love (and emotions) has a basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies and we can see evidence of love in the behavior from other people or pets.

Some argue that our relationship with God also has it's basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies.

We can see evidence of God due to our relationship with Him (if we are willing to have one).

Obviously if God exists (as defined by most theologians and philosophers for the last N hundred years) it would be impossible to scientifically investigate Him. This is why the demand for 'proof' when they mean scientific proof is crazy.

It is like demanding that a circle is 1 dimensional.

JM

[Lorizael]

Ugh. I think you're purposefully being obtuse here, JM. If we assert that people have relationships with people, there are a whole bunch of testable predictions we can make based on that (psychology, sociology, economics, political science, etc.). If we assert that people have relationships with God, we can predict...?

[Jon Miller]

You have a bunch of other assumptions (those of science) in your testable predictions. These assumptions are impossible with God (as defined by most philosophers and theologians for the last N hundred years).

JM
(I obviously have nothing against science.)

[Jon Miller]

Honestly, I completely understand someone saying 'it isn't scientific, I have no interest'.

It is those who attack Deism for lacking proof when they mean scientific proof and this is philosophically impossible, which I oppose and am responding to.

JM

[DaShi]

Yes, it's impossible to scientifically prove anything, so we should believe in everything. You've entered Kid territory, JM.

[MRT144]

Some argue that our relationship with God also has it's basis in biochemical reactions within our bodies.

We can see evidence of God due to our relationship with Him (if we are willing to have one).

Obviously if God exists (as defined by most theologians and philosophers for the last N hundred years) it would be impossible to scientifically investigate Him. This is why the demand for 'proof' when they mean scientific proof, is crazy.

JM

God existing for people that believe in God's existence isn't really a proof of God's existence, scientific or philosophically.

[Jon Miller]

Yes, it's impossible to scientifically prove anything, so we should believe in everything. You've entered Kid territory, JM.

No.

It is possible to scientifically prove some things within the assumptions of science (it is proven that it is impossible to prove all things with the assumptions of science).

It is impossible to scientifically prove that God exists in the assumptions of science.

That doesn't imply that God exists.

There are philosophical proofs of God's existence. Whether they hold or not generally depends on your assumptions.

I am an empiricist. I value experience and evidence, even when it can not be scientific (and is not sensory). Obviously the proof that I value is one of personal experience. And that is the proof I will give you.

JM
(It is impossible to prove anything with 0 assumptions. But I am not suggesting anyone try that, or that that has any meaning. Trying to do so is just silly.)

[MRT144]

I knew it! I just knew you were an empiricist based on this whole thing.