What is "Proof"?

[Divinorumus]

The statement I made earlier, that "God is simple enough for a child to understand" is made self evident in these kinds of places where the children are not long for this world.

God is just a concept invented by man. And sure, if a kid can believe in Santa Claus, then they should be able to grasp the concept of an omnipotent deity. But again, it's all just a concept, invented by man, and handed down from man to man (and women too). A concept though does not make it true. God may be no more real than Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

Also, there hasn't been a shred of evidence to suggest that a god exists. For all we know, WE, US, YOU, ME, are god ... a god that is just dreaming all of this up. There is some proof that this is more likely the case, whereas there is absolutely no proof that that religious god figure, some omnipotent deity, exists. I mean, when you sleep, you've experienced realistic realms filled with stuff and people, and you believed it was all real while experiencing it. Unless you can always know when you are experiencing a dream, you could be experiencing one right now .. all of this could be a dream.

Dreams are a very interesting topic, because what is proof and true within a dream? You might experience a dream where you are being chased by a rabid wolf, and you believe it to be real, and you may run from it. Yet, it's all a lie, fictitious, illusionary, none of it real what so ever. REAL may even be a lie. There may be no truths, except maybe just one.

When it comes to this god issue, I am an agnostic ... I just don't know. Until proof is acquired, I will not merely believe in or worship what may potentially be a lie, a false idol. If there is a god, and he/she demands to be acknowledged and worshiped, then he/she MUST show him/her self to me, prove to me, that they exist. I will not worship anything invented by MAN (or women). Now, I may have suspicions, beliefs, but that is all they are, and I do not worship suspicions or beliefs either. I can not and will not say something is so and true unless I have some proof that it is so and true.

The world belief really bothers me. When someone says they believe in something, THAT does not mean it is true. Thus, what I take issue with is, if it is a belief, just a belief, why do so many people ACT as if it is NOT a beleif, and play pretend that it really is TRUE? A belief is just a suspicion, nothing more, nothing less. Belief is not a substitute word for TRUTH ..when the evidence is lacking. I really do take issue with those that take a mere belief and go around acting as if it were a TRUTH. This is totally DECEPTIVE! It's a LIE. If someone believes there is a god, that is only their suspicion. But to go around ACTING as if a belief is true is living a LIE! To say GOD EXISTS is a BOLD OUTRIGHT DECEPTIVE LIE!!! To say something like GOD LOVES YOU is another lie. In fact, if a god does exist, he/she may take issue with those stuffing WORDS into that gods mouth. I know if I were an omnipotent deity, I certainly wouldn't want people going around proclaiming things I NEVER SAID.

This whole issue of god is so deceptive. I mean, if I were satan, and I wanted everyone to go to hell, I would invent a false idol and call it god and get everyone to worship that false idol, ha.

I have beliefs like everyone else, but I do not proclaim my beliefs are true, and I do not go around acting as if they are true. I need proof, first hand experience of something, before I can acknowledge the thing in question. And even then I remain suspicious. Even now I'm suspicious of our reality. Even though it appears REAL, I can not really proclaim all this really is REAL, because I've been fooled by non-lucid dreams before. All I can admit to is that it does APPEAR real, but that does not mean it is. For all we know, we could be in some kind of matrix right now. If a god does exist, and created all of this, then we really are in some kind of matrix .. some gods matrix.

Even truth can be an illusion, but when the evidence is lacking, such as any proof of a god, then I won't lie to you and say it is so. I reserve judgment until I KNOW something. To suspect or merely believe is not enough .. it's not even admissible evidence in court. And even when something appears true, it could still be a lie .. like that wolf that chased me in a dream months ago, ha.

You never know, when you die one day you may wake up and realize that all this was just a dream .. and you may not even be a humon .. you could be a gray alien dreaming all this, you could be a brain hooked to a machine, you could even be god him/her self just imagining all this.

You can see the dangers in playing make-believe, don't you?

[RedDog]

God is just a concept invented by man....SNIP...You can see the dangers in playing make-believe, don't you?

Your perspective and belief system is well taken and understood.

[Divinorumus]

Your perspective and belief system is well taken and understood.

Don't know if I even put forth a belief "system" myself, I'm not real keen on playing make-believe. Although I have some simple harmless beliefs of my own, I don't really like the idea of beliefs. Beliefs are dangerous.

It is certainly a FACT that there is no proof of a god ... yet. Many more plausible explanations exist than some invisible spook exists. In fact, you and I and others wouldn't even have known what the term GOD meant if it wasn't SUPPLANTED into our susceptible brains during our impressionable years.

I mean, have you heard about the almighty Ougala Boogala? No, you probably haven't. But, I'd bet my life that people would be worshiping Ougala Boogala today had their minds been programmed to do so since birth.

Thus the dangers of beliefs. When people fall for a belief, their are allowing OTHERS to tinker with and program their brains and do your thinking for you. Most humons even seem incapable of coming up with an original thought of their own, thus they worship those that can and do. Feral they would be, if not for their early indoctrinations.

Not a single shred of evidence exists that there is a god .. or isn't a god .. but, when there is a lack of evidence for something, that generally implies something .. doesn't it. Could be true, could be not true. But a lack of evidence does sway things in one direction.

I mention this too because, when one is worshiping a BELIEF, they are NOT worshiping a TRUE thing. Religion, and that religious god of theirs, could be a deception, a trick. Certainly a lot of religious people ARE worshiping a false deity. There are over 4000 religions today, most all differing in their dogma and belief in what god is and isn't. Some religions are even in total conflict with each other. This means that, among those 4000+ religions and their various versions of god, only 1 (ONE) could possibly be true, while the other 3999 are worshiping a false idol. Pretty risky thing to do, if one needs their god beliefs, to be possibly risking the worship of a false idol. If one of those 4000+ religions are correct, then the members of the other 3999 religions are destined for hell. Right?

I'm playing it safe .. I'm gonna hang on the sidelines and wait for any possible real deity to reveal itself to me. Until then I'm agnostic, because I just don't know. I'm not willing to risk the ramifications and consequences of playing make-believe. And neither do I want someone else's mere beliefs polluting and influencing my brain, ha.

[project xbsde]

Don't know if I even put forth a belief "system" myself, I'm not real keen on playing make-believe. Although I have some simple harmless beliefs of my own, I don't really like the idea of beliefs. Beliefs are dangerous.

So why are your beliefs "harmless" while the others you don't ascribe to dangerous? And do you have "proof" to support your beliefs regardless of how innocuous they may be?

Thus the dangers of beliefs. When people fall for a belief, their are allowing OTHERS to tinker with and program their brains and do your thinking for you. Most humons even seem incapable of coming up with an original thought of their own, thus they worship those that can and do. Feral they would be, if not for their early indoctrinations.

Not really, in fact contemporary studies show that many rebel against the ideological pantheons of their parents and or immediate authority figures as early as prepubescence and actually tend to convert or altogether abandon mono/polytheistic dogma in favor of generic higher power, agnosticism, atheism etc. in their late teens or early adulthood

Not a single shred of evidence exists that there is a god .. or isn't a god .. but, when there is a lack of evidence for something, that generally implies something .. doesn't it. Could be true, could be not true. But a lack of evidence does sway things in one direction.

what actual tangible evidence do you have that an atom can be spit aside from the assurance of a scientist accredited under the auspices of an "institution" and how do you know he isn't deceiving you?
Have you seen an atom split with your own eye?

I mention this too because, when one is worshiping a BELIEF, they are NOT worshiping a TRUE thing. Religion, and that religious god of theirs, could be a deception, a trick. Certainly a lot of religious people ARE worshiping a false deity.

Perhaps they are unwittingly worshiping the same "deity"

There are over 4000 religions today, most all differing in their dogma and belief in what god is and isn't.

Often this is the result of man's adulteration of that religion's original precepts

Some religions are even in total conflict with each other.

And there are striking similarities in others

This means that, among those 4000+ religions and their various versions of god, only 1 (ONE) could possibly be true,while the other 3999 are worshiping a false idol.

It depends on if the religion is based on belief in a higher power or worship of rocks and trees like Wicca.

Pretty risky thing to do, if one needs their god beliefs, to be possibly risking the worship of a false idol. If one of those 4000+ religions are correct, then the members of the other 3999 religions are destined for hell. Right?

Depends on the religion and your own conceptualization of "hell"

I'm playing it safe .. I'm gonna hang on the sidelines and wait for any possible real deity to reveal itself to me. Until then I'm agnostic, because I just don't know. I'm not willing to risk the ramifications and consequences of playing make-believe. And neither do I want someone else's mere beliefs polluting and influencing my brain, ha.

What would those ramifications and consequences be? As an agnostic you risk hell, as a Christian you risk an hour a week in church and if you’re wrong the results are the same as agnosticism (nothing)
Are you really that susceptible to the power of suggestion and the influence of others over you?
anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to concede to the existence of at least "intelligent design" if not a "higher power" be it of alien or supernatural origin (perhaps one in the same) but you come across as not only pompous and condescending on the surface, but to a trained eye; one who is indecisive and paranoid about others inducing psychological control over you through brainwashing and deceptive practices based on belief systems and religious allegory.
Paranoia may destroy ya!

[Project]

thanks for the kinks line cheshire

proof is not evidence, and evidence is not proof. I think definitions are being liberally applied here.

There are proofs, but they are based on experimentation and logic, and illogical ideas like god or satan or basically anything in the metaphysical world are not appropriate to be studied under the lens of evidentiary science. That is why we call it belief not proof. They are not one stronger than the other, they are complimentary or opposites, depending on who you are.

Deny science, deny religion, in either stance you lose part of the picture we as humons have strived long to understand, and I believe you understand less of yourself denying either one.

Learn it all.

[Divinorumus]

So why are your beliefs "harmless" while the others you don't ascribe to dangerous? And do you have "proof" to support your beliefs regardless of how innocuous they may be?

First, any belief I may have are harmless because I do not proclaim they are true, I do not insist others must believe in them, and I do not go around threatening others with beheadings and/or eternal hell if others do not subscribe to my few petty beliefs. The red flag of warning goes up when some gang of make-believers act as if their mere beliefs is true, and make threats if others do not subscribe to their beliefs. That's why, for example, Christians and Muslims are dangerous, because they make threats of beheadings and eternal damnation if you don't bow down to their bloated bag of beliefs. How nice is that when others insist you join their gang or you will have you head chopped off and/or sent to hell to burn in fires forever and ever? Evil! Evil religions!

what actual tangible evidence do you have that an atom can be spit aside from the assurance of a scientist accredited under the auspices of an "institution" and how do you know he isn't deceiving you?
Have you seen an atom split with your own eye?

I haven't, but there are many in Japan that have. The evidence of all that is out there for those that care to look for themselves.

Perhaps they are unwittingly worshiping the same "deity"

And perhaps they are worshiping a bunch of bull. It all does sound pretty far fetched. And, without a shred of evidence, honestly, all they are doing is playing make-believe.

And there are striking similarities in others

Yes, pretty lazy and copycat of them, ha.

It depends on if the religion is based on belief in a higher power or worship of rocks and trees like Wicca.

Well, at least one can prove there are rocks and trees.

What would those ramifications and consequences be? As an agnostic you risk hell, ...

LOL. Says who? Another belief? Another threat? If a Christian should tell me to my face that if I do not join their club/gang I will be sent to hell, I will consider that coercion and a deadly threat and will cap the sucka! I already laid one dude out on his back for making such a threat to me.

Are you really that susceptible to the power of suggestion and the influence of others over you?

Fuuunnneeeee. If that were the case, I'd be preaching religious dogma like so many that are so easily programmed.

anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to concede to the existence of at least "intelligent design" if not a "higher power" be it of alien or supernatural origin (perhaps one in the same)

Another belief? Says you. Who the hell knows? I won't play make-believe just because I do not know. I have some suspicions, beliefs if you prefer, but really, they mean nothing without any proof.

but you come across as not only pompous and condescending on the surface, but to a trained eye; one who is indecisive and paranoid about others inducing psychological control over you through brainwashing and deceptive practices based on belief systems and religious allegory.
Paranoia may destroy ya!

And you sound insulting and threatened by those that don't believe the way you do. You have my pity.

[earthist]

Pretty interesting discussion; lots of good points on all sides, IMO. I still have (at least) one more thought to discuss.

Worship, proof (in an absolute sense), and belief (again, in an absolute sense) seem extreme to me. We don't have a good supply of words to adequately describe admiration or appreciation (for worship), tentative or provisional evidence (for proof), and perhaps working or functional belief (for belief).

I think it's important to avoid extremism, but I also think it's important to retain the ability to decide. So far, deciding has to remain tentative in order to avoid becoming extreme. So far, my answer to accomplish that "balance" is humililty meaning the opposite of arrogance. Arrogance, in turn, meaning "I'm right, and you're wrong." In humility, I can be right only so long as I can also allow you (the general you) to be right, too.

Everyone can't always be right, of course, at least not in an absolute sense. However, everyone can be right within a given framework. I think of it much like relativity, where one's measurement of "truth" depends on one's frame of reference as it relates to another frame of reference. In other words, disregarding hoaxers and liars, whenever I see or hear of a truth that differs from my own, I attempt to find a framework where it would be true rather than simply denying it. I then attempt to compare that framework with my own, and find some way to incorporate the two into a more-or-less coherent whole.

If I cannot make them whole (or integral, as in integrity), I look for mistakes in both frameworks. In looking for mistakes, I use questions related to sanity. Does one framework lead to greater sanity than the other? If not, then it goes on the back burner for further information. If so, then I reject the one, even if it's my own, in favor of the other. Even then, so long as one framework doesn't function to deny the other one, I allow that my decision is still provisional. In other words, the only framework I refuse to recognize is one that says other frameworks cannot or should not exist; arrogant frameworks, in other words.

Then there's the question as to what's sanity. That discussion goes on forever as far as I can tell, and that's where "gnosis" comes into play. I simply reserve the right to decide what sanity is for myself based on how it "feels." If it leads to greater confusion, less self-responsibility, lesser ability to decide, less wholeness or integrity, less humility, and so forth, then I will say it seems less sane to me. But I don't think that assignment can ever be anything but personal, aka "self-evident," or gnostic.

Oh, and by the way, I apply the above to all "truths," whether scientific, religious, or ad hoc.

FWIW

[Divinorumus]

In other words, the only framework I refuse to recognize is one that says other frameworks cannot or should not exist; arrogant frameworks, in other words.

Religion for example? They belief those that don't believe their dogma should have their heads chopped off and/or be sent to hell.

There are those frameworks too that make coercive threats if you do not subscribe to their framework, and that should be illegal! I do not take threats lightly. If some salesman should knock on my door and proclaim that if I do not subscribe and buy into to what they are selling then I will be sent to hell, I will react appropriately and defensively to such a threat, and I don't care if they are selling magazines, bibles, dogma, ideologies, or boxes of cookies.

[project xbsde]

Disclaimer: I as "cheshirecat" accidently deleted my cookies could not remember my password and I had to sign back up, now to continue on topic:

First, any belief I may have are harmless because I do not proclaim they are true, I do not insist others must believe in them, and I do not go around threatening others with beheadings and/or eternal hell if others do not subscribe to my few petty beliefs. The red flag of warning goes up when some gang of make-believers act as if their mere beliefs is true, and make threats if others do not subscribe to their beliefs. That's why, for example, Christians and Muslims are dangerous, because they make threats of beheadings and eternal damnation if you don't bow down to their bloated bag of beliefs. How nice is that when others insist you join their gang or you will have you head chopped off and/or sent to hell to burn in fires forever and ever? Evil! Evil religions!

These are most likely the result of man's revisionism and unlikely the intended creed of those religions, again here you are letting man have too much influence over your thinking.

I haven't, but there are many in Japan that have. The evidence of all that is out there for those that care to look for themselves.

So if you went to Japan you would be able to see an atom split with your naked eye?
No you would just have more scientists and more elaborate man made gadgetry set up to possibly deceive you and thus further brainwash you.

And perhaps they are worshiping a bunch of bull. It all does sound pretty far fetched. And, without a shred of evidence, honestly, all they are doing is playing make-believe.

This argument is moot and based on flawed thinking that dictates that because something cannot be immediately proved by today's limited resources that it by default does not exist. Not too long ago constricted thinkers like youself would have scoffed at the notion of micro organisms and bacteria causing diseases.

LOL. Says who? Another belief? Another threat? If a Christian should tell me to my face that if I do not join their club/gang I will be sent to hell, I will consider that coercion and a deadly threat and will cap the sucka! I already laid one dude out on his back for making such a threat to me.

well as amusing as your 90's era street lingo may sound, not only did you edit the statement you are replying to, you altered its intended content and you are again fixating on man's interpretation of these religious doctrines instead of the metaphoric and symbolic ideologies that these religions were founded on.
Abstract thinking is something I highly recommend.

Fuuunnneeeee. If that were the case, I'd be preaching religious dogma like so many that are so easily programmed.

You have been programmed to think this way by the new world order that is well aware of the correlation relating to the abandonment of basic Christian values and the demoralization and subsequent destabilization of this country. The resulting disintegration of the family and family values has lead to a lack of cohesion in the family unit that has had a direct and cascading effect on the number of single parents families out there today, and studies prove that these sngle parent familys produce children that are statistically more likely to commit crimes or experiment with/use drugs (no offense to single parents as I'm sure you or someone you know has kids that defy this statistic.)

Another belief? Says you. Who the hell knows? I won't play make-believe just because I do not know. I have some suspicions, beliefs if you prefer, but really, they mean nothing without any proof.

No one knows, so why is any one particular belief more ridiculous than the other? Again it's man's own revised interpretation of religion that makes it dangerous but you have been programmed to think otherwise; do your suspicions include evolution or "spontaneous existence"? (I coined that term)

And you sound insulting and threatened by those that don't believe the way you do. You have my pity.

Where have I stated my personal beliefs here? Again you have been programmed to assume this, I suggest an immediate debriefing.

[Divinorumus]

This argument is moot and based on flawed thinking that dictates that because something cannot be immediately proved by today's limited resources that it by default does not exist. Not too long ago constricted thinkers like youself would have scoffed at the notion of micro organisms and bacteria causing diseases.

You missed the whole point I was trying to make. UNTIL SOMETHING "IS" PROVEN, one can NOT proclaim it is so. THAT is my whole issue with the MAKE-BELIEVERS. THEY ACT as if their MERE BELIEF IS TRUE, when in fact THAT has NOT been ESTABLISHED, yet, if ever. It may be true, it may not be true, but to say something is TRUE without actually knowing it is TRUE is called LYING!

It's like when we were kids. If mommy found the cookie jar empty, she MIGHT suspect YOU, but then again it might NOT have been YOU are responsible. Yet, it could have been papa. Thus, BELIEFS are dangerous, and should not be acted upon as if they are absolute TRUTHS. If the make-believers ruled the courts, imagine how many more people would be in prison.

CASE CLOSED and DISMISSED! Come back WHEN you HAVE some PROOF, humons! Until then, all beliefs are just THAT, BELIEFS, and they should not be HAWKED as and acted upon as TRUTHS! Children play MAKE-BELIEVE, NOT grown mature level headed adults.

[Alpha]

Again, back to the original subject of this thread.

WHAT constitutes "PROOF"? What is it?

Is it a substantiation of a preconceived theory/paradigm in a current best theory?

Do we even know how we "see"? ..or do we?

What "science" says or what they have taught us to believe....is that what "science" and the "truth" is?

What if it's all wrong? Where's the truth then?

Could we not say that "science" and the proof therein, was contrived on someones belief and supported by same?...those who made the round pegs, fit into a square hole, to prove a belief?

Do we know this is true?

[Alpha]

Disclaimer: I as "cheshirecat" accidently deleted my cookies could not remember my password and I had to sign back up, now to continue on topic:



These are most likely the result of man's revisionism and unlikely the intended creed of those religions, again here you are letting man have too much influence over your thinking.



So if you went to Japan you would be able to see an atom split with your naked eye?
No you would just have more scientists and more elaborate man made gadgetry set up to possibly deceive you and thus further brainwash you.



This argument is moot and based on flawed thinking that dictates that because something cannot be immediately proved by today's limited resources that it by default does not exist. Not too long ago constricted thinkers like youself would have scoffed at the notion of micro organisms and bacteria causing diseases.

No one knows, so why is any one particular belief more ridiculous than the other? Again it's man's own revised interpretation of religion that makes it dangerous but you have been programmed to think otherwise; do your suspicions include evolution or "spontaneous existence"? (I coined that term)

Where have I stated my personal beliefs here? Again you have been programmed to assume this, I suggest an immediate debriefing.

Great post for the most part

Of course the parts that my CBT agrees with

[Divinorumus]

WHAT constitutes "PROOF"? What is it?

Something indisputable! (DUH!)