₦airaland Forum

Crystyano:
What do you consider as an empirical proof


A definition that shows how XYZ can exist also shows the required proof

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Empirical evidence for a proposition is evidence, i.e. what supports or counters this proposition, that is constituted by or accessible to sense experience or experimental procedure. Empirical evidence is of central importance to the sciences and plays a role in various other fields, like epistemology and law.

Scientific evidence is closely related to empirical evidence but not all forms of empirical evidence meet the standards dictated by scientific methods. Sources of empirical evidence are sometimes divided into observation and experimentation, the difference being that only experimentation involves manipulation or intervention: phenomena are actively created instead of being passively observed.

Crystyano:
No need to test for what has no definition that shows how it can exist

Fantastic. Then you don’t even exist seeing we have no empirical proof for your consciousness.

Your logic is also non existent seeing you don’t have empirical proof for it.

Is that okay?

Workch:
It's not a child's play, this argument is consistent with your logic.

Since science doesn't have the tool to test Christian god because the Christian God who created science is beyond science, so the Christian God cannot have the tool to test its creator who's the flying spaghetti monster. The flying spaghetti monster is beyond the Christian God.


Very consistent logic

Let me tell you what is consistent here:

1. Your failure to show empirical tools employed in test for the supernatural, religion, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics

2. Your inability to see that you are already conceding that you are incapable of providing what I asked for

3. Your concession to the existence of all that science cannot detect including God, spaghetti, mind, consciousness, maths, logic, aesthetics,

4. Your inability to grasp the necessary existence of God Almighty, the CREATOR and the contingent existence ( if demonstrated ) of spaghetti, part of CREATION, made by the creator

5. Your inability to see that God’s existence can be demonstrated and has actually been demonstrated without leaning on spaghetti.

6. Conversely, science hasn’t got the tools to prove the existence of consciousness, maths and logic. Why didn’t you stretch your flawed logic here to say that maths and logic can only be demonstrated with your daddy spaghetti?

Dtruthspeaker:
He and all of them if not properly cut down will Move all over the world.

No one is asking them to depart from their foolishness but they must they always attack us.

Surely, they do not want to die alone and they think that they can be safe from God's judgement, if others join them.

Aptly put. God bless you.

“For God's [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative.

For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks).

So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification], [Ps. 19: 1-4.] Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking [with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations] and their senseless minds were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves].”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/rom.1.18-22.ampc

Workch:
I agree, it doesn’t have to be logical.
Since we don’t understand it yet, we have to understand first to see the logic in it.

The Christian god was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can develop a tool to disprove that

Hahahaha!
Everything now looks like a child’s play.

Workch:
I agree to whatever fallacy you call it as long as you agree that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

The logic will force you to accept it.

Again, this is a poor representation of the claims on knowledge of philosophy you make.

You don’t force logic on people. You drop valid logical arguments and allow your points win the arguments.

So if it’s a difficult thing for you to see that claims of Almighty God Yahweh are not dependent on arguments for spaghetti, then I wonder how else I will help you out.

I am trying to reconcile what point you are struggling to make.

Dtruthspeaker:


Are you still trying to obtain good reasons from a satanist?

Can good be obtained from a hater if God?

You have made a beautiful presentation and his only opposition is that it pleads Authority without evidence whereas, his own presentation also pleads Authorities without evidence eg Jean-Paul Sartre, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, etc.

When you pin him down he starts running all over the place.

Abeg don’t mind the guy with his circular arguments.
Lol

Workch:
Do want to provide any evidence or you want to keep distracting me?

Circular arguments. Keep deflecting.
I have been consistent in this discourse on my request for empirical data testing for the supernatural. You are the one who fired the appeal to authority cannon. So let’s drop the authorities we know ( even though most of what we know came through one authority or another), tell us what empirical method YOU specifically used in testing religion and the supernatural since you don’t like and agree with the authorities who said such doesn’t exist yet.

Workch:
ok, that means the Flying Spaghetti Monster created god as he claim.

We cannot know this because the current methods of theology and science are too limited to test it.

Again ask believers in flying spaghetti to help you out.

Our God discussions doesn’t need the help of arguments from spaghetti to stand.
What is your obsession with the spaghetti? You bring it up in every of our engagements even though it’s unrelated to our discussions.
May I know why?

Workch:
You are the person misunderstanding me.
I asked testable evidence.
Seems you are very weary of science

Maybe you go back and see how we got here. You forget too soon . Or you intentionally drift . Which is it?

Crystyano:
The God(s) iS/ ARE SAID to have attributes...

The above statement is different from THERE ARE GODS OR THERE IS A GOD WITH SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES...


Let them state the definition of the supernatural/God that shows how the supernatural/God can exist before anything else...

Lol!

See who is talking about shifting goal post:the kettle calling the pot black. That’s hypocritical.

I want you to stick to his scientific/empirical tools claim and follow it to conclusions.

But if you want to shift to God’s attributes, fine. It implies you already concede you really had no scientific tools to test for God and the supernatural but had been lying all along.

Workch:
It means that you cannot disprove the claim by flying spaghetti monster that he created the Christian God.

If you God is correct then this claim has to be correct as well. They are very compatible

Deflections!
Coming from someone who started by warning us to avoid fallacies.

Do I need to prove flying spaghetti for the claims of God to stand?

Have you heard of contingent and necessary existence before?

God exists contingently. I do not need to talk to you about spaghetti to show you God.

Look for spaghetti believers and argue spaghetti with them.

Workch:
You see why I prefer abusing you instead of having a sane argument with you?
Do you want to be reasonable or should I treat like an animal?

I have told you that I need just testable evidence. It must not be scientific, if this testable evidence comes from science then fine

You can abuse me.

I hate that you started this thread with bragging and cockiness when in fact you just direct-lifted someone’s intellectual property without so much as acknowledging them. That’s plagiarism and intellectual theft.

You made it look like you were one philosophically sound juggernaut.

So go ahead and abuse me.
After that, provide the empirical tools science used in investigations of the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, scientific laws( yes science doesn’t have empirical proof for scientific laws), consciousness, maths and logic.

You can keep your circular arguments to yourself if you can’t provide any of those.

Workch:
You are right since theism makes it very ambiguous, however we can test for the attributes of specific gods. Every good have well defined attributes, these attributes gives us what to test for.

For example, the Christian God has the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, these attributes can and has been tested to be false. So when I ask for how we can test for a god, I am actually asking the proponent of that God to state a well defined attribute of his specific God and then we test those attributes.

If he/she keeps shifting goalpost then you know there's something wormg.

Lol!

So you have finally dropped your scientific/empirical proof chant. That’s too early actually.

Workch:
Another unscientific way to test for the omnipotent attribute of your God is to go to say accident and emergency ward of LUTH and heal those who recently had accident. Like replenish their flesh immediately.
This is just simple and a nonscientific way of providing evidence. Atleast we have verifiable data that can be tracked to confirm this miracle unlike those they perfrom in churches.

You must not make the whole situation so difficult just because you don't want people to expose you.

So you have jettisoned your almighty empirical tools for investigation? Lol

I am still waiting for how you test for those items I listed earlier.

I would like you to stick to the claims Christians and the Bible had made about God. You are setting your expectations here and you can’t box the sovereign God into your own expectations. Rather you fit into God’s.

So look at the claims theists have made and then pick them up on that.

Did you believe God based on previous miracles others testified about?

“He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭16:31‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/luk.16.31.ampc

Workch:
It's not compulsory that it has to be a scientific tool that will test for your God.
It can be anything even outside of science.

For example, you can show us that miracle is real by growing the limb of an amputee, there's nothing scientific in this method. It's a simple method and this will go a long way to change the mind of many atheists.

Making it look like we can't test your God is dubious and a subtle way of telling us to accept it without questioning it.

So let’s be clear. Are you agreeing or conceding that all the bogus claims of atheists and skeptics about God not existing because of lack of empirical data is false?

I have seen how slippery it is for you to show me empirical tools for proving the reality of maths, logic, consciousness, aesthetics, supernatural, religion.

You just don’t have it, do you?

Then I have seen you make reversals on statements made by respected skeptics that doesn’t seem to support what you had in mind. That’s good.

Miracles have happened severally. Miracles still happen. Miracles will still happen. Miracles are not done by humans because there are exclusive prerogatives of God Almighty.
Any human who claims to perform miracles at his/her whim lies to you.

I had expected you to go round and conduct your personal interviews from everyone who had had a claim of experiencing miracles and confirming their genuineness. Ask doctors too who had given up all scientific hope of recoveries who later witnessed healings beyond their medical explanations.

But if you are looking for magic, then meet magicians

Workch:
Dropping quotes from a scientist without evidence is fallacy of appealing to authority.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Albert Einstein that made the quote, as long as it doesn’t have evidence it can’t be taken seriously.


You should avoid that fallacy .

Now what do you mean by there’s no tool to test supernatural yet?

Ah! There you go!

So let me remind you that those texts you copied yesterday even without acknowledging the intellectual rights of the writers was also an appeal to authority.
You neither formed nor developed those arguments. You give back to us what you read. You weren’t born with those knowledge. So you should know a fine line between us reeling out what we have learnt and appealing to authorities we study from.

That said, those comments were made in the course of discussions on God. If you think Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Hawkings etc should not be listened to when they speak, that’s fine. But a lot of atheists and skeptics draw arguments from their texts.
I am sure you would also like to quote them when it’s convenient for your arguments. Now that they concede no one can disprove the existence of God, you think I appeal to authority. Lol

So tell me what scientific tool we can use to investigate and prove the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, maths, logic, consciousness.

Are you also aware that science cannot proof it’s scientific laws? Science doesn’t have a tool to prove its scientific laws.

But if you say you have the tools, show me here. I mean empirically!

Workch:
What do you mean by it has no tool yet?

Sir see that Lewontin Richard quote.
Follow it line by line.

I also intentionally dropped quotes from renowned and respected scientists who aren’t Christians or theists.

Lewontin said we cannot give a foothold to the supernatural. He said it is their a priori disposition.
He also said they are tilted towards materialism.
Those guys are very sound scientists yet they concede science has nothing to say or disprove the supernatural and religion. If they had any tool to dismiss the supernatural and religion, they would have done that and published it in different texts.

So you see? They simply made a decision to stick to their a priori worldview and that’s it.
Nothing more.

Cheers

Workch:
Alright, have a nice night then

I will only believe a testable evidence and not personal revelation

Interesting!

The personal experiences are subjective.
There is no empirical evidence for God as science has no tool yet ( I doubt it will ever have) to test for God. Science only says “ we don’t know yet”. But some unscrupulous scientists (humans) would want to speak for science as though science had said anything.

God is argued in philosophy and logic. There are no tools to empirically test logic, maths or consciousness. Yet we believe by our experiences that these things are real and have direct effects on us.

You could go back and continue reading up your points and counter points or you could take your decision based on your worldview and end it up there. It’s after all a personal decision to say evidences indicated are SUFFICIENT OR NOT SUFFICIENT, rather than saying no evidences were presented at all.

I say those points you listed first aren’t sufficient enough to conclude there is no God. They aren’t. Maybe until a day you empirically show there is no God, I will agree with you on your strict empiricism and materialism stance.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers


“One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
- Stephen Hawkings


“I finally gave up on God when I was 15,” Richard Dawkins writes ... But failure to disprove something is not a good reason to believe it.”- Richard Dawkins.

He couldn’t empirically show there is no God. He keeps talking about low probabilities of the existence of God, but was never certain.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]

~Richard C. Lewontin

Workch:
OK noted.

Can you adresss the topic now?

Thanks. These long and fine arguments done by the philosophers is okay already.
Points and counter points...

Will you believe my subjective personal experiences of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ministration if I talk about it?
That’s just the additional thing I could add to the intellectual arguments up there.

Workch:
Did I say it wasn't copied or you just don't want to address the topic?

When you lift part or a whole of an academic work, you make reference to the work and acknowledge the original owners. Otherwise it becomes an intellectual theft.

You didn’t sound like you lifted it from anywhere. Rather you bragged about it.
So let me respond to your copy and paste by my own copy and paste. But I will acknowledge the link it came from...

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Arguments For the Existence of God (Overview)

Aquinas’ Five Ways

For in depth analysis of the individual arguments, see unmoved mover, first cause, argument from contingency, argument from degree, or teleological argument.
In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[17][18] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[19] Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[17]
Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[17]
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[17]
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[17]
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[17]
Rational warrant

Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas[20] that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.

Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.[21]Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can “demonstrate the rationally warranted nature of belief”.[22]

Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.[23] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but, often, are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience.[24] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.[25] All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms “the trace of God”: the footprints left behind that point to the impact.

Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans:[26] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Deductive arguments

Ontological argument

The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[27]

Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.[27]

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans.[28] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term “God” really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.[29] Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[30] A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although “existence” does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being.[citation needed] Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga who explains that even if one were to grant Kant that “existence” is not a real predicate, “Necessary Existence”, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate, thus according to Plantinga Kant’s argument is refuted.[31]

Inductive arguments

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottishstatesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[32]
Other arguments

The hypothesis of well design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.[33] Its proponents are mainly Christians.[34]
Argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga.[35]
Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability and the evolutionary argument against naturalism, concluding that naturalism is incapable of providing humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive epistemic status.[36]
Argument from Personal Identity.[37]
Argument from the “divine attributes of scientific law”.[38]
Subjective arguments

Arguments from historical events or personages

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This could only be true if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’adat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.[citation needed]
The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God’s existence.[41] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur’an, and its unique literary attributes, vindicate its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God.[42][43]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ, and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God. The whole Latter Day Saint movement makes the same claim for example Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), etc.[citation needed]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong, establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Various sects that have broken from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (such as Church of Christ “With the Elijah Message” and Church of Christ (Assured Way)) claim that the message brought by John the Baptist, One Mighty and Strong, to Otto Fetting and W. A. Draves in The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Arguments from testimony

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[44]

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as “the priest stories”) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God’s existence.
Arguments grounded in personal experiences

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This apparent natural law for guidance and belief could only be consistent if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’ādat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called “Born-Again Christians“.
The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.[citation needed]
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is “properly basic”; that it is similar to statements like “I see a chair” or “I feel pain”.[citation needed]Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person’s consciousness and unites them to one another.[45] God’s existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person’s understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people’s hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.[citation needed]
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[46]
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher’s footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.[citation needed]
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one’s subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself.[citation needed] In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: “Deum … naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor.” (“I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.”)
Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him.[47][48]
Hindu arguments

Most schools of Hindu philosophy accept the existence of a creator god (Brahma), while some do not. The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[49]

A human’s karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the axe moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[50] Thus, God affects the person’s environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[51] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[52] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some are poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual’s actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[52] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[52]

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-against-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Copy and paste!
Go back and copy more.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Next!

OBALOLA55:
LOGICAL POSITIVISTS LIKE DAVID HUME CALLED FOR THE BURNING OF ALL WORKS ON METAPHYSICS ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS JUST AN ILLUSION.

MOST LOGICAL POSITIVISTS LIKE RUDOLPH CARNAP DAVID HUME AND SIR RAIMUND KARL POPPER WERE ALL ATHEISTS. INFACT ALL THE THE LOGICAL POSITIVISTS THAT ATTENDED VIENNA CIRCLE WERE ALL ATHEISTS.

That’s less than 10 names from the many sound philosophers who believe in metaphysics and in God.

OBALOLA55:
HOW MANY ANCIENT PHILOSOPHERS WERE CHRISTIAN APART FROM PLATO AND FEW OTHERS

https://www.britannica.com/biographies/philosophy-religion/theology

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_philosophers

There are so many.
You can check in alphabetical order, or by gender or by era or by school of thought.

Some pure and applied scientists actually are not comfortable with metaphysics and philosophy.
Funny enough the philosophers jovially beat them in arguments and let them know that science is built upon philosophy.

Some of the lecturers that took us in some philosophy classes in the university were surprisingly Catholic priests. And they were good.

franugo:
So if you commit fraud tomorrow and efcc asks the bank to produce your verified address information nko? Or you don't know that banks are charged millions for not doing proper KYC?

Lol!

CBN threatens banks with N2m per BVN infractions sometimes. Account not properly linked with BVN.

And then Police and EFCC go just use you play if you cannot show them the house of a suspect whose account is under you.

You go just dey report EFCC office every now and then. If you dare say you no know the house, wahala. If you say you know, you will take them there. And if you take them there and Na wrong address, integrity issue. Your office go hold that integrity issue for your head.

Working in a bank is just like walking on egg shells and praying that wahala no go bust any day or say wahala wey pass you well well.

OBALOLA55:
HE MUST BE A PHILOSOPHY STUDENT

Philosophy is just love for knowledge.
Religion is actually grounded in philosophy as against most atheists who want to hide behind empiricism, scientism and materialism to defend their worldview.

Metaphysics in philosophy helps humans look at so many concepts beyond the 5 senses we know. That’s why some people think philosophy and metaphysics is rubbish because it contrasts their view about all reality starting and ending in nature/matter.

A001:
Don't expect any reasonable answer from those hypocrites, who are some of the most corrupt people on Earth.

Rubbish talk from a child.

Can we see your location and neighborhood so we can interview them with empirical data how you a godless and skeptical fellow had made your environment morally upright?

I mean the atheists and skeptics in Nigeria should have turned their immediate environment to a paradise and then replicate in the country. If you don’t have evidence for that, then you are just making noise.

You just attack anything theism out of hatred and not based on any logical reason.

kingxsamz:
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.
The lady equated being atheist as "going astray". Tell us how being Christian have made your society a better place since it's more populated by you folks. Thank you.

That’s why Nigeria which is populated by Christians and Muslims is a very morally upright society.


That your statement up there makes no sense if you an atheist has not built a paradise and an eldorado around you and your neighborhood and your place of work or business.

I mean we should have a very morally upright society in any location where a single godless person like you is found. Is that the case?

Casio calculator based on the general convention we know- BODMAS.
1