Where is the actual proof for God/Allah/YHWH/etc?
>>806884
You disprove it first and then I'll tell you how your disproof is wrong.
The religion baiting is getting out of hand on /his/.
>>806891
Disprove the existence of a waifu dimension where Renge-chan loves me.
>Christian proof
He's real because m-muh book says he's real
>Muslim proof
He's real because fuck you I said so now believe or die heathen
>Jewish proof
Oy vey goyim, you wouldn't want to be accused of anti-Semitism would you? Pls believe in my G-d and us as a Chosen People (and don't forget to give all your money to your greatest ally)
>>806919
The first two are true of every religion at some point, and the last one is massively not true of Jews at all.
Jews don't try to prove their god exists to anyone who isn't Jewish.
There is no actual proof. I would agree that God definitely exist if only he personally shows up to me and demonstrate some miracles.
>>806884
Aquinas's 5 ways are usually cited, though they have flaws
In the Summa Theologica :^)
Religions are not to be treated as a science but as systems of belief.
God will not solidify under a certain condition, you merely have to believe in his grace. That is all that is asked of us.
>>807458
>That is all that is asked of us.
If you fuck up you get tortured eternally though. That's probably something good to keep in mind.
>>807469
Unless you repent, albeit certain sects of Christianity deal with repentance differently. Remember, Jesus forgives the sinner.
>>806884
I have a 2 foot long dick, what more proof do you need?
>>807458
If belief is the only requirement, what exactly is the difference between religion and delusion? What makes one set of belief any more valid than another?
Note I'm not trying to belittle you or anything. I just to hear the case for it.
>>807478
>Unless you repent
Oh. Well that makes it okay, then.
>>807502
If you find comfort in your delusion or use it to live a richer life then it's religion.
>OP asks for proof
>christfags/muslims/kikes unable to offer anything
TOP KEK
>>807502
You actually pose a good question, one which I'm not all too certain I can give you an answer.
I don't mean to sound ignorant but perhaps speaking to someone at a local church would help as they're far more versed in the religion than the average follower.
For my answer I suppose that one can compare the two as they're both a set of beliefs. One set of beliefs however is backed up by thousands of years of worship, written scripture, etc.
Just for clarification I'm not well versed in Christian beliefs at all and have only recently began reading the bible and converting, maybe one day I can actually help answer difficult questions in regards to the religion but I just don't believe I'm ready to be taking on such a challenge.
>>807504
>how can you say with certainty anything about him?
Once again, it's a belief not a science. We do not have a scientific method to prove his existence, you believe or you don't. If the average Christian could do a litmus test for whether or not God is real they would be doing it daily to prove to you he exists.
>>806884
The proof of God is in his people and their belief.
The proof of everything is in the people.
Only people search for proof.
If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear. Does it make a sound. Answer that and you will understand what I am saying.
>>807562
>If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear. Does it make a sound.
It does, sound is just waves created by the disturbance of a medium.
>>807524
>Implying Jews believe in God
>>807575
No sound is the energy caused by vibrating atoms.
>>807584
I thought sound was the vibrations of matter
>>807590
atoms are matter.
>>807592
nothing matters anyway
>>807575
Waves make sound, but sound is what you hear, if you are deaf, you will not hear sound even with waves.
There is only one person who can interpret those waves as sound for you, that is you.
>>807599
sound itself is a wave. Also you can detect sound existing by simply feeling it vibrate your body at high enough decibels.
>>806884
Have you ever read any natural theology or Philosophy of Religion ? There are quite a few proofs in those two disciplines. Whether or not there is any solid proof that can do it perfectly isn't something that has been decided. And really you won't find any Philosophical argument or Scientific theory that doesn't have some purported problem with it. Some people think that the proof they put forward is solid, some others don't, and the debate almost never is truly settled. But that is like all things, once you get unanimity it just means that dogma has set in and authority has triumphed over reason. Your best bet is to go a look through the proofs yourself and see if one convinces you, if it doesn't then your best bet is to isolate what you think the problem is and then go find some literature where someone tries to address the problem you have and see if they can do it or not, just continue doing this until you die.
>>807599
Technically yes, a "sound" is just your brain interpreting those waves into something you "hear", but the sound as a wave still exists whether there is anyone to hear it or not, similar to how color and light still exist as photons and the variations in wavelength thereof, regardless of whether or not there are any eyes to see them.
Faith isn't about tangible proof. Don't try prove or disprove something like this
>>807611
And if you can not feel, that vibration, does it exist?
For you it does not. Yet the next man can and the next and the next. So by a process of accumulating witness statements you accept that the sound exists, even if you have not experienced it.
>>807636
Whether humans choose to accept somethings existence or not does not affect it's actual existence, that's just human centric bias.
>>807649
So what is proof?
>>806884
There is no proof. That's where the whole 'faith' thing comes in.
>>807665
Observation. Humans are, unfortunately, limited in our knowledge by our senses, so the best way for us to figure anything out about the environment we live in, is to pool our collective sensory input and interpretation together and see what we can agree upon. This of course leads to a lot of incorrect assumptions about our environment, do to the flawed and mutable nature of our senses and reasoning, but collective observation is our best way of knowing anything about anything. Of course the trick is not to get confused and think that the senses are all that there are or that the existence of any phenomena is reliant upon our ability to observe it.
>>806891
>Prove a negative first
Nice "debating" skills, Cletus.
The thing about how faith makes one leave the need for proof has three consequences.
1) No one can go to hell. It is unjust for God to expect everyone on the planet to follow him without proof.
2) Your ability to critisize other religions is very limited. The non-Christian can use the same faith arguement to justify his God.
3) You need to accept your proselytizing is not going to be effective. Faith may be a fine reason for you but it's not going to convince a lot of people.
ITT: Theists get BTFO
>>807686
I agree, that is the why of the various disciplines of the sciences. It is also why Christians are called witnesses of Christ, our any belief. Wether you accept those witnesses or not, is up to you. For you are witness to your own experience.
Now I am off to bed, good night.
>>806884
If a Christian provided you with the resurrection and eyewitness accounts you would refuse to call it evidence,
If a Muslim provided you with the visions of the prophet Muhammad, you would dismiss it as hearsay,
If a Jew gave you the so-called 'Mosaic' writings, you'd likely do the same.
Truly 'proving' religion to one closed to it is entirely impossible; a scholastic philosopher (a'la Aquinas) would disagree, however, and point to the Aristotelian and Natural Law arguments for the existence of God.
>>807757
Even if you could somehow prove all those things you just said, all that would prove is that a bunch of people in the past (prophets, sages, etc) did magic tricks ("miracles") that wowed and impressed people back in the day and those people then wrote about them.
It doesn't prove that there is a God, only extraordinary magicians, poets, and philosophers with cults of personality and legends grown around them.
>>807554
>For my answer I suppose that one can compare the two as they're both a set of beliefs. One set of beliefs however is backed up by thousands of years of worship, written scripture, etc.
I really don't think the average christian would be pleased to be told that their religion is a delusion backed up by scripture written by people within a delusion that's backed up by scripture.
>>807575
>>807584
"Sound waves" are not sound. Sound is the perception of sound waves. I'm not just supposing my own definition here, this is how the word is used in neuroscience. Of course, that's not how it's being used in the philosophical "if a tree falls in the forest..." question, so there's really no reason to impose that definition there.
>tree falls in the forest
Do you niggers even know how to Taboo Your Words?
http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/
>>807757
>If a Christian provided you with the resurrection and eyewitness accounts you would refuse to call it evidence
Literally no other resurrections have been observed and no known mechanism for resurrection is known, so merely having eyewitness accounts for one specific one does not count as evidence no matter how many people claimed to have seen it.
>If a Muslim provided you with the visions of the prophet Muhammad, you would dismiss it as hearsay
Absolutely no-one's "visions" have ever been admissible as evidence in any serious undertaking. Would you trust "visions" in a court of law to acquit someone who otherwise obviously did commit whatever crime is under discussion?
>If a Jew gave you the so-called 'Mosaic' writings, you'd likely do the same
Writings themselves do not prove the truthfulness of the claims within.
