COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

How would you prove that God did not abandon us?

BailBail Deep Thought PExer
eto po yung assign nmin sa philosophy.. bigyan nyo nman ako ng idea o.. thanks :D
«1

Comments

  • boredtodayboredtoday tomorrow and yesterday PExer
    he gave us a proxy. :lol:
  • BartoloxBartolox I AM WHO AM PExer
    Originally posted by Bail
    eto po yung assign nmin sa philosophy.. bigyan nyo nman ako ng idea o.. thanks :D
    Which God?
  • rickymrickym Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    their are different beliefs even with those that believe in god.

    one version is that god created in is helping us in our day to day life.

    another version says that god created and has left us to ourselves.
  • Casta DivaCasta Diva La Rhine Joyeuse PExer
    Let me give you Rabindranath Tagore's wonderful answer to your question:

    Every child born in this world is proof that God has not yet lost hope with us.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    either attack the question positively, that is, quoting various instances of completeness, and or order in the universe or attack it negatively, which i think will make your professor think.

    Ill explain. the question in itself, assume the existence of God, a question debatable in itself. Having said this, try to prove that God is non-existence, or atleast, we cannot validate his existence, and thus he is non-existent (scientifically). Having proven this, then it is impossible for God to abandon us, since abandonment requires WILL, or positive action. A being who is non exisntent cannot perform a willful act.. and hence, God cannot abandon us. :)

    its tricky. pero promise, ok na ok yan. To negate the question, negate the assumptions.
  • BartoloxBartolox I AM WHO AM PExer
    It may look like it's ok and all but the thing is, you cannot validate or disprove the non existence of anything that is unproven in the first place. It's a cheap trick to shift the burden of proof on people who have no reason to believe.
    ...try to prove that God is non-existence...Having proven this (the non existence of God), then it is impossible for God to abandon us
    How in the world did you arrive at this conclusion?
    since abandonment requires WILL, or positive action. A being who is non exisntent cannot perform a willful act.. and hence, God cannot abandon us
    Here you say a non-existent "being" (a contradiction) cannot perform a willful act. This statement has no meaning. You also assumed that "abandonment" requires "WILL" and "WILL" is a positive action. The truth is Abandonment does not require "WILL". You can abandon a cause without doing anything. You dont need to have "will" to not do anything. "WILL" in connection with Abandonment is "negative action".
  • p.i.joep.i.joe Member PExer
    Another angle to this is that God do not really exist and the feeling that he either abandoned us or not alleviates our fear of the unknown.
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Bartolox.

    it is not a trick, but rather an accepted scientific method, to place the burden of proof to those who believe on non-existent things, such as a pink unicorn.

    The burden to validate the existence of a pink unicorn is on the one who believe then rather than to those who doesnt believe them... since empirical data shows that pink unicorns dont exist.


    And hence, the problem has been shifted because God doesnt exist and is not part of the physical world. Or as the law of conservation of mass would say: If God is present in the physical universe, then he is also dependent on actions, and is merely a reaction... for sure, you wont want to 'place' such a limitation on GOd.

    Definition:
    Abandonment is a positive action, that is I CHOOSE TO LEAVE. Positive action doesnt mean action that promotes happiness, but rather action that we choose, or atleast we think we chose (determinism).

    therefore, if u abandon a cause; it means u gave up on it. u became a disbeliever of that cause. a belief is willful. :)

    In conclusion, i was referring to the physical evidences of God's existence. that is how does he fit in the physical world, and on physical laws. Furthermore, since he cannot fit in it, the burden lies on the other side :)
  • Good grief. Get a grip, ya'll.
  • BartoloxBartolox I AM WHO AM PExer
    Originally posted by freakster2k1
    Bartolox. it is not a trick, but rather an accepted scientific method, to place the burden of proof to those who believe on non-existent things, such as a pink unicorn.
    Exactly! Very Good. Just one correction, we cannot say pink unicorns are non-existent, we can only say it is unproven.
    The burden to validate the existence of a pink unicorn is on the one who believe then rather than to those who doesnt believe them... since empirical data shows that pink unicorns dont exist.
    There is a major flaw in those statements. There is no Empirical Data that show the existence of Pink Unicorns and may I add, God. It is very different from saying "empirical data shows that pink unicorns dont exist.", which is wrong.
    And hence, the problem has been shifted because God doesnt exist and is not part of the physical world.
    You're saying God exists but is not part of the "physical world". So how does that shift the burden of proof?
    Or as the law of conservation of mass would say: If God is present in the physical universe, then he is also dependent on actions, and is merely a reaction... for sure, you wont want to 'place' such a limitation on GOd.
    How did you relate the Conservation of Mass and Energy with those statements? I would like to see your reasons for doing so.
    Abandonment is a positive action, that is I CHOOSE TO LEAVE. Positive action doesnt mean action that promotes happiness, but rather action that we choose, or atleast we think we chose (determinism).
    Abandonment of a cause or belief because of fear or apathy is cowardice. The opposite of which is forbearance. By your definition, all choices are positive because "I CHOOSE". But that is not the case here. Abandonment is negative because your choice is opposite to what you affirm originally.
    therefore, if u abandon a cause; it means u gave up on it. u became a disbeliever of that cause. a belief is willful. :)
    As long as there is rational basis for abandoning the cause.
    In conclusion, i was referring to the physical evidences of God's existence. that is how does he fit in the physical world, and on physical laws. Furthermore, since he cannot fit in it, the burden lies on the other side
    Thats absurd. Because the concept of God cannot fit in the "physical world", the people with no reason to believe or are skeptic about it has to prove he doesn't exist? Why?
  • rickymrickym Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    freakster2k1 said:
    "In conclusion, i was referring to the physical evidences of God's existence. that is how does he fit in the physical world, and on physical laws. Furthermore, since he cannot fit in it, the burden lies on the other side "

    malabo ata iyan. anyone can say that 'x' does not fit in the physical world and therefore the burden lies on the other side.

    and 'x' could be virtually any issue which people can dream of.
  • BartoloxBartolox I AM WHO AM PExer
    yeah. x could be anything. Kapres, dwendes, Santa Claus, talking donkeys, invisible pink unicorns, singing stones, mathematically inclined little pigs, Kulam, white ladies, and finally God, Jesus and the Holy Mumu.
  • ShinobiShinobi Life is such a beautiful! PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Uhm....ang paniwala ko dahil hinde naman natin mapatunayan talaga na walang dyos at iniwan nya tayo, Maaring andyan nga sya at hinde nya tayo iniwan

    yehey! :D
  • freakster2k1freakster2k1 Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Bartolox,

    You said: Exactly! Very Good. Just one correction, we cannot say pink unicorns are non-existent, we can only say it is unproven.

    Out of curiosity, your statement tends to conclude, that things of non-existent, are things that has no place in the empirical realm, that is it cannot be proven or not proven to exist, and hence it has no ‘quality’ of existence. Exactly, my point! God is not in existence (physical world); because we cannot prove other wise. And hence, its non-existence is improvable; are you willing to place God in this realm?

    You said: You're saying God exists but is not part of the "physical world". So how does that shift the burden of proof?

    It exists in believer’s mind. There are two types of existence, physical and in the mind. God exists but not in the physical world.

    Then you said: How did you relate the Conservation of Mass and Energy with those statements? I would like to see your reasons for doing so.

    The conservation of mass and energy states that no energy is created or destroy only transformed. Is God part of the total ‘energy’ And if he is so, then his power is limited by this law. However, if he is outside the total ‘energy;’, then how can he ‘show’ himself, he will upset the balance of energy.. and hence, nullifies the law itself.

    You said: Abandonment of a cause or belief because of fear or apathy is cowardice. The opposite of which is forbearance. By your definition, all choices are positive because "I CHOOSE". But that is not the case here. Abandonment is negative because your choice is opposite to what you affirm originally

    As I suspected, we were running on two different definitions; while yours is based on moral grounding, mine is not. Mine is based on the existentialist definition, of passive and positive action.

    Finally u state: Thats absurd. Because the concept of God cannot fit in the "physical world", the people with no reason to believe or are skeptic about it has to prove he doesn't exist? Why?

    Huh?

    One more thing, so far you’ve attacked my position without answering my queuries on yours. And another thing, don’t break arguments point by point.. it becomes superficial such as this post.. since the essence of the argument is lost in the process.

    I am neither a theist or an atheist or an agnostic. I deny all types of questions; in doing so, I accepted all possible answers. And hence, the ice cream thesis.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Originally posted by Bartolox
    Exactly! Very Good. Just one correction, we cannot say pink unicorns are non-existent, we can only say it is unproven.

    that is, unless you add "something which is not pink" to the a-priori definition of a "unicorn;" in which case, a "pink unicorn" would not be a unicorn but something which only resembles a unicorn's esse save for its pinkiness.
  • boredtodayboredtoday tomorrow and yesterday PExer
    ^ don't you think we'd call it a unicorn too, only with a different breed name just like how we call dogs?

    enough with the unicorn. LOL :lol:

    anyway, on topic: it doesn't make God non-existent just because we can't validate his existence. That's like looking only at one side of the coin.

    oh don't mind me, hehe.
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    not necessarily. if we define dog strictly as a quadruped with scientific name canis familiaris, then anything which does not conform with these two parameters could not be called dog. similarly, if we define unicorn as not pink, then everything pink, no matter how close they resemble a unicorn in every other aspect, could not possibly be one. either that or we have defined unicorn incorrectly. personally, i'd go for the second, although by logical analysis, it should be the first; hence, the "a-priori" part.
  • still_thinkingstill_thinking Member PExer
    I think it's just simple as if God abandon us..why does we still have the air, water and this world???


    :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
  • IscharamoochieIscharamoochie Moderator PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    i fail to see the logical connection in the last post.
  • rickymrickym Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    for the thread starter:
    this is for school right, i guess the first thing you have to figure out is if you want to figure out the truth, or if you want to tell your teacher what he wants to hear. if it is the latter, you have to figure out what he wants to hear, then give it to him.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file