Proof...what is good enough?

[Sanguvixen]

I have witnessed an amazing thing! I have come face to face with a dragon and lived! You do not believe me do you? However, I have absolute proof of this! I have a picture! See?



Who dares defy me now? Huh? Oh wait, what is that I hear? Photoshop? MS Paint? It's two pictures put together? Feh...so what?

Actually what does constitute as proof these days? Ever stop to think about it? I mean, pictures can be falsified(I made that above picture with MS Paint). Videos can be falsified too. Eyewitness accounts are just hearsay. That and people's memories will unintentially distort the details of events as time goes on.

A lot of people go on about needing proof, but what constitudes as proof? For that matter, as an Atheist, or an Agnonstic, what is proof for you?

 

[Dissnitive Blade]

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.  

[Sanguvixen]

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

 

[Dissnitive Blade]

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

Yes, it would proof to me that religion is real, but even if I did witness it what would happen if I walked to a random person and told them I talk to a god? they would more than likely either ask for proof or ask me if I have a history of drug use. I would probably respond the same way if a random person walked up to me and told me they had seen a god.  

[Sanguvixen]

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

Yes, it would proof to me that religion is real, but even if I did witness it what would happen if I walked to a random person and told them I talk to a god? they would more than likely either ask for proof or ask me if I have a history of drug use. I would probably respond the same way if a random person walked up to me and told me they had seen a god.

Yeah...well in my family there is a slight history of insanity. My mother's father went insane, and thought he was a prophet. It made life hell for my mom, her siblings and her mother.

For some strange reason the people who are most vocal about seeing or haven been spoken to by a god tend to be, druggies, drunks, schizos, or the mentally disturbed. So that is kind of why people question so quickly.

So that is what you would need in order to believe in religion? To have a god actually speak to you? How would you know it is a god though...?

 

[Dissnitive Blade]

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

Yes, it would proof to me that religion is real, but even if I did witness it what would happen if I walked to a random person and told them I talk to a god? they would more than likely either ask for proof or ask me if I have a history of drug use. I would probably respond the same way if a random person walked up to me and told me they had seen a god.

Yeah...well in my family there is a slight history of insanity. My mother's father went insane, and thought he was a prophet. It made life hell for my mom, her siblings and her mother.

For some strange reason the people who are most vocal about seeing or haven been spoken to by a god tend to be, druggies, drunks, schizos, or the mentally disturbed. So that is kind of why people question so quickly.

So that is what you would need in order to believe in religion? To have a god actually speak to you? How would you know it is a god though...?

Well not God exactly, but something stronger then what is currently offered as proof. As far as knowing if it is actually god, that would be difficult to tell, I guess it has a lot to do with self trust and how far your willing to trust what you see.  

[Sanguvixen]

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

Yes, it would proof to me that religion is real, but even if I did witness it what would happen if I walked to a random person and told them I talk to a god? they would more than likely either ask for proof or ask me if I have a history of drug use. I would probably respond the same way if a random person walked up to me and told me they had seen a god.

Yeah...well in my family there is a slight history of insanity. My mother's father went insane, and thought he was a prophet. It made life hell for my mom, her siblings and her mother.

For some strange reason the people who are most vocal about seeing or haven been spoken to by a god tend to be, druggies, drunks, schizos, or the mentally disturbed. So that is kind of why people question so quickly.

So that is what you would need in order to believe in religion? To have a god actually speak to you? How would you know it is a god though...?

Well not God exactly, but something stronger then what is currently offered as proof. As far as knowing if it is actually god, that would be difficult to tell, I guess it has a lot to do with self trust and how far your willing to trust what you see.

Okay...that makes sense. Self trust is important...because you cannot always trust words, or even your own five senses.

 

[Dissnitive Blade]

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Sanguvixen

murasame blade

Proof is a tricky thing, what might be proof to one person may not satisfy another. What I would consider proof would have to be to actually witness the actual thing. If I were to actually speak with the god of any religion, I know that my word wouldn't be taken seriusly as proof.

But of course. Hearsay...is useless. It's just what you witness...but you have to take so many things into account. Was the person under the influence of drugs, or alcohol...or is he or she lying for personal gain? So it would be proof to you as an individual to witness something...but only to you.

Yes, it would proof to me that religion is real, but even if I did witness it what would happen if I walked to a random person and told them I talk to a god? they would more than likely either ask for proof or ask me if I have a history of drug use. I would probably respond the same way if a random person walked up to me and told me they had seen a god.

Yeah...well in my family there is a slight history of insanity. My mother's father went insane, and thought he was a prophet. It made life hell for my mom, her siblings and her mother.

For some strange reason the people who are most vocal about seeing or haven been spoken to by a god tend to be, druggies, drunks, schizos, or the mentally disturbed. So that is kind of why people question so quickly.

So that is what you would need in order to believe in religion? To have a god actually speak to you? How would you know it is a god though...?

Well not God exactly, but something stronger then what is currently offered as proof. As far as knowing if it is actually god, that would be difficult to tell, I guess it has a lot to do with self trust and how far your willing to trust what you see.

Okay...that makes sense. Self trust is important...because you cannot always trust words, or even your own five senses.

That is true.  

[Theophrastus]

Descartes runs in and throws a wrench in things like proof, truth and reality! Bwee hee!  

[ProjectOmicron88]

-"Evidence of God's existence is all around us! Look at something as perfect as a tree!"
-"But the branches go all over the place, and it is not symmetrical. By definition, it's far from perfect."
-"Oh, yeah. Well, where do you think you came from? How is man so excellent of a creature?"
-"We can be killed by tiny creatures we can't even see, we can be born deformed, and sometimes organs just stop working, or get infected and have to be removed."
-"Well, okay, but what about all the people who wrote of God? Surely divine inspiration is obvious there!"
-"Good authors know how to keep canon. This is evidenced in the following that H.P. Lovcraft's work inspired, as well as books based upon Star Wars."
-"Well...well, where do you think the universe came from, then? It HAD to have been God!"
-"Not necessarily. If matter and energy cannot be destroyed, it's not unreasonable to assume there has also always been the same amount in the universe. Existence just is, and it's really beyond human comprehension to try to imagine the concept of nonexistence. If God can be infinite, why can't the universe? It should work, according to you."
-"..."  

[Six Billion of Spades]

The amount of proof required to "prove" a claim is directly proportional to the enormity of that claim. If I told you, for example, that I just finished a glass of water, I shouldn't have to prove it to you, because there's nothing inherently extraordinary about drinking water. On the other hand, if I told you that saw a dragon, you would probably ask for some substantial evidence. You would need archaeological records, photographs, and quite a large scientific consensus.

Under the current use of the word, "proving" something is simply showing it to be highly probable. It's not probable, for instance, that we live in the center of a slow-acting digestive system. It's possible, but there's no evidence supporting the claim, or any good reason to believe it. There are lots of possibilities that just aren't probable, like the claim that unicorns live on Jupiter. It's possible, but why even believe it at all?

Oh, and here's a possibility to ponder...

We don't really live on Earth, because Earth is just the name we have agreed to use for this particular planet. Prove me wrong.  

[=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=]

no one ever said we should believe our eyes.
our eyes are deceiving.
but i think that it all depends on what a person believes in,
if i choose to believe in scientific proofs, that's just me.
this is why we have the freedom of religion,
because not all people believe in the same thing or proof.

 

[ProjectOmicron88]

=X-Sparker + AquaKiller=

no one ever said we should believe our eyes.
our eyes are deceiving.
but i think that it all depends on what a person believes in,
if i choose to believe in scientific proofs, that's just me.
this is why we have the freedom of religion,
because not all people believe in the same thing or proof.

That's the weird thing. Our eyes decieve us in more ways than we can imagine. We can see over a million shades of color, or something to that effect. That means there are either colors we can't see, or there are darker shades of black and brighter shades of white that we can't percieve.

There's a lot of things about proof and disproof that requires logical and rational thought, but the main thing many theists don't realize is that the inability to disprove something is not the same as proof itself.  

[Death God Hitsugaya]

Anything I see/sense, before it is proof to me, it must be comprehendable (sp?) in my mind. I am human, we can reason, we are the only ones who can reason at this level, so I must use it.

EX: I do not believe in ghosts. If I see a ghost, and since our conciousness and all thought has been logically and rationally proven to be in our brains, the ghost does not make logical sense and is therefore a trick of my mind. The trick of my mind would be caused by a memory of something or someone overlapping with my current vision, and so on.

(don't hate me for using ghosts, its just that this was one of the easier ones to explain)  

[Nopenname]

Theophrastus

Descartes runs in and throws a wrench in things like proof, truth and reality! Bwee hee!

The only thing that Descartes can "PROVE" is that he exists.

He clears one square foot of land for himself alone to stand on and then attempts to hold the entire world, dieties included on his own shoulders like atlas.

Any arguements fielded from outside his tiny universe in which he only exists easily penetrate his rediculous set up. Only when you ASSUME what he says and that the way he sets up his mathematically based universe is true, and then only ask questions from within those paramaters can anything he says be valid.

That being said. The clouds would have to open up and the diety would have to ascend from the sky before me while I could be proven to be lucid XD.