Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Menomaths]

Out of curiosity why are you both sy's?

 

[astroman]

Out of curiosity why are you both sy's?

ikr look at all the Sy's

 

[Kiraken]

just as a side note here, Kant specifically said you could not prove the existence of God lol so he isn't *rly* the best example to use, neither is Aristotle who also believed a lot of things that have since been proven wrong

 

[Sy123]

just as a side note here, Kant specifically said you could not prove the existence of God lol so he isn't *rly* the best example to use, neither is Aristotle who also believed a lot of things that have since been proven wrong

I didn't mean to imply that Kant thought so, I really just meant the time period

I'm also not saying that since Aristotle thought he proved the existence of God, doesn't mean we should take it, just illustrating that "proof of the existence of God" is not really a foreign concept

 

[futuremidwife]

I love this thread

 

[Sy123]

1) Well, no. That's not what the proof means. Proof implies absolute certainty. What you are doing is merely supporting. You haven't proved the existence of anything.

Then I do think there are proofs for the existence of God in that I think there are proofs that are demonstrative, not that they are probabilistic, but I think that some proofs in particular are demonstrative

2) Worst is relative to each individual as each person will hold their conviction based on different reasons. You can scroll back, in this thread or do some research, and see for yourself

worst = those that are illogical

The fact that you are decidedly picking those "proofs" that are illogical is dishonest, and the fact that you are defending this is astounding

3) Pity. The burden of proof is on the asserter. The same way i can assert the existence of a tooth fairy, magical sky fairy, flying spaghetti monster, unless proven otherwise.

No, I said that in reply to your statement, "you can't prove the existence of God", this is an affirmative statement and by your own admission, this needs proof
So give me proof instead of running away

4) I made no specific reference, at all, to the cosmological argument.

You said:

Or the self-refuting "Everything has a cause. Therefore God. God doesn't require a cause (because we defined him like that, duh!)".

Which is an obvious parody of the Kalam cosmological argument

5) God is not detectable by nature. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word god. By definition, his existence is omniscient, omnipotent etc. This defies natural law.

God defying 'natural law' (whatever that means), does not entail that God is not detectable by nature, specifically, if we can outline a contingent existent who's cause must be God (like the Universe)

6) Were did I specifically say all arguments, and by extension, imply that I have disproved them, are incorrect?. The nature of this study has diminishing returns, by showing that this has been going on for thousands of years my aim was to tell you simply that you, as an individual, cannot possibly prove his existence.

You said that "the existence of God is impossible to be proven", if you want to hold the negation of "the arguments for the existence of God are all incorrect", then you admit there is a proof of the existence of God, which contradicts your original statement

I didn't *imply* anything

Yeah the tradition of natural theology has been going on thousands of years, but not because they had doubt about His existence lol, they were coming up with new proofs and improving old ones

7) "you have not addressed any of the proofs I have given". Do you understand English? Do you even read what you type?

Yeah I do understand English thank you, but you evidently do not, as I was clearly referring to the proofs I have given in this thread in a couple pages before, that statement event by itself does not mean "I have proven the existence of God in a few lines", this is a logical leap

8) Heh. They thought wrong. By merely asking me above to prove the fact that you cannot disprove the existence of god, you have already accepted the fact that god cannot be proved and are relying on absence of evidence to assert the existence (refuted in point #3)

The halves of these sentences do not follow from each other, I am asking for proof that you cannot disprove the existence of God, but by asking so I am not presupposing anything, I'm just asking you to substantiate what you claim, which is something you have a hard time doing.

9) Atheism arises from a lack of evidence. Evidence will change an atheists mind. Atheism is not a belief that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief (brought upon by a lack of evidence) in god. I didn't except you to know any better.

Atheism is not a "lack of belief in God", if that was true, then agnostics are atheists, and so are verificationist, also cows and babies are also atheists since all of these categories have a lack of belief in God

In fact, your definition of atheism is a modern one that only "new-atheists" accept, classically defined, an atheist is one who denies the existence of God.

Also this was a response to just one word in my response to you, and you have not addressed the rest of "number 9"

10) I don't need to prove god doesn't exist. Refer to point #8 (which, again, refers to your point #3)

Yes you do

11) Your ill-defined 'proof' can be 1000 lines if you want it to. Oh wait, refer to point #7, which specifically refers to you saying "I never claimed to...existence of God"

Thanks for taking my quote out of context because I clearly say "I don't have proof for the existence of God IN A FEW LINES"
Also you haven't addressed what I actually said in point 11

12) I'm really not.

Alright buddy

13) The evidence is out there, you know where to look.

Give some please

14) Right, isn't this funny? The epitome of every religious and atheist debate ever. Both sides truly believe that the other is wrong, that the other has no idea what they are talking about, that they are right. The only difference is that the atheist is backed with rational evidence, whilst the religious is backed by ill-found logic and ancient texts. Evidence-wise, and by definition, it's irrational to believe in the self contradicting idea that is of a god. Religion purports this on the basis of 'faith', and really, that's a whole new argument.

The problem being of course is that you are giving a number of assertions and no proof, especially in your statement that "self contradicting idea that is of a god"
You say that religion is based off of "ill-found logic", but instead of giving examples you continue in your ignorant diatribe

Here's the point in hand though, you're not going to say "You have changed my views" because, frankly, you've probably seen every argument out there and made a judgement. Whatever I continue to reply, you will do whatever it takes to maintain high grounds, be it arguing over petty lexical semantics, contradicting yourself, using foolish remarks and insults without purpose or going by vague definitions to maintain high grounds, simply because of the fact that you are fuelled by this deeply ingrained religious conviction while the atheists on this type of forum just do it for fun and mess with religious logic.

Yeah I have seen a lot of what the atheist can offer, and none of it is compelling in the least, you can't say the same though since you haven't even investigated the case for theism given that you don't know how to characterise the cosmological argument

Thing is though, I have done my best to maintain logical rigor by outlining every single step in my reasoning, whereas you have shown that you have a lot of hidden assumptions and leaps in logic

 

[astroman]

 

[Sy123]

Post your proof then. Even though I know that no such thing can exist. Just for the self-satisfaction of proving them wrong.

1. Everything that is contingent requires a cause
2. The Universe is contingent
3. Therefore the Universe is caused

After this proof I'd give a long defense on why the cause of the Universe is what we know as "God"

Expanded upon by al-Ghazali in his book, al-Iqtisad fi al-I'tiqad or in english, Moderation in Belief.

 

[braintic]

Yes we do have proof for the existence of God, everyone who believes in God must have proof for the existence of God, whether that proof is self-authenticating (i.e. you experience God, or it just seems obvious to you), or it is a rational proof is a different story

Most people consider "proof" to mean a lot more than "self-justification".
Proof is something that can be used to convince others of a truth, so saying "I saw it" is not a valid proof.
And if anyone does claim to have proved the existence of god, I would have to ask ... WHICH GOD? Does your argument lead logically to the existence of the god that you happen to believe in, or can it also be used to justify the existence of Ahura Mazda?

These so-called "logical proofs" offered by users like Feynman are flawed because they make huge assumptions about the about causality - when they state that 1 logically leads to 2, that 2 logically leads to 3, etc, they don't seem to understand that they are merely stating an opinion based on a disbelief that things could be any other way.

For example - your own 'proof'. What do you mean by 'contingent', and where is the support for the claim that the universe is contingent? Do you realise that one of the definitions of 'contingent' is 'subject to chance'? Not that I like playing word games, but theological arguments have a habit of being based on poorly defined (even deliberately vague) terms.

In any case, that "proof" offered by Feynman was a direct copy-and-paste from the web. She clearly did not understand what she was posting because she refused to take up your request to expand on it.

 

[Librah]

Ugh, i don't know if this has been asked yet, but even if you do happen to die/meet God, whatever you may believe he would look like. How could you confirm that this person was actually God and not just something/one that claimed to be God. (Assuming your definition of God represents him as something with a mind).

 

[dan964]

here is one way to look at
http://adam4d.com/elephant/

 

[Librah]

here is one way to look at
http://adam4d.com/elephant/

Well, tbh all that is saying is to leave it up to faith/trust. My question was if you did leave it up to faith, how would you determine (if possible) that your not being deceived by say another incomprehensible being. I suppose this depends on what you think a God is.

 

[braintic]

here is one way to look at
http://adam4d.com/elephant/

You could use (most of) that argument to explain why people don't see the big picture in relation to the cosmological origins of the universe.

It then suggests reading the bible, when that argument could just as easily have been used to justify why you should read the Avesta.

 

[Flop21]

Who cares. People are able to believe whatever they want because faith does not need physical proof. This is always a dumb argument because you can't argue it / prove it / prove against it.

 

[dan964]

Who cares. People are able to believe whatever they want because faith does not need physical proof. This is always a dumb argument because you can't argue it / prove it / prove against it.

Faith is indeed based on evidence, sometimes historical, sometimes scientific, sometimes logical/philosophical, sometime that is certain. For example I have 'faith' in the chair I sit on, but I can see the skill of the workmanship, I trust the manufacturer was not a shifty con-artist, and that the person before sat on it and it didn't break, and I tested it by sitting on it with a mattress underneath to cushion in case it broke.

The evidence for faith does necessarily have to be observable in the sense of scientific method, but can be historical first-hand witness and testimony. Now I agree that not all religions have such evidence. But the beliefs I have (which you can probably guess) do.

>>> The real question is not whether you can prove God's existence but rather whether you approve of God's existence.

If he doesn't exist, then 'whoop-ti-do", you live you die that's it.
If he does, then if you disapprove of his existence then 'whoop-ti-do", you still live you die.
If he does, then if you approve of his existence then you need to start asking if God exists, and I approve of his existence, what does that mean for how I should relate to him, or how I should live my life>

 

[braintic]

I agree that not all religions have such evidence. But the beliefs I have (which you can probably guess) do.

Perhaps you'd like to expand on that one ... both in terms of your beliefs, and also the beliefs which you say offer even less evidence.

Bear in mind that historians do not tend to place much stock in stories that have only one source. Also bear in mind that we are talking about the existence of a god, and not the existence of certain historical human beings.

 

[dan964]

Here are some evidence, now whether the evidence is conclusive is a different story, that is for you to decide.
Most of this evidence you are probably very familiar with.

As I said earlier, even I could definitively convince the evidence is sufficient to prove to you God existence, it does not change the fact that some would disapprove of him regardless.

General Evidence:
(1) The complexity of creation and the fragility of life. For example the human brain is one of the complex things in the universe, it is able to understand profound concepts such as quantum physics or higher level mechanics, it is able to reason, rationalise, think, stimulate etc. The intricate balance of life, such as the small precision required in certain circumstances (e.g. temperature, gravity), make the Earth an thriving habitat for life, unique in the solar system and possibly in the galaxy. Even the fine tuning of the universe, if it was unstable or slightly off, would have been catastrophic for life. Even the general human regard for life and acknowledgement that we need to take care not just of our species but also for our environment.
The intricateness and particular the order (which science has definitely proven) can't originate from a causeless or random chaotic cause (of which I would include a multiverse), order indeed must be instituted by a cause that is ordered. Thus it implies an ordered creator

(2) The creation of time and space. Since time and space has an origin, unlike the Steady State theory which has been disproven. The universe is finite in existence, despite being incomprehensible in size, it still has a finite size, otherwise the Big Bang would not be a valid theory.
The fact of a beginning to space and time, implies directly something beyond space and time. It also implies a creator, but by itself this evidence does not definitely prove it

(3) Absolutely morality. The idea of what is right and wrong, becomes subjective if God does not exist. In fact the strongest piece of evidence for God's existence is the very fact we have a consciousness and have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. In fact no matter what race, religion, language or tribal group, many people consent to certain things as being good, at the same time disapprove of other things
If there God exists, that the distinction between right and wrong is not subjective, which means there is actually of some benefit to doing right and wrong. If the distinction between right and wrong is merely subjective, and there is no absolute standard, then a person can easily justify what they do even though others may view as wrong, misguided; as acceptable. If it is subjective, there is no reason to do right other than to advance the evolution of the human race. If that is the case, how come we become complacent and forget those in the past. We claim to remember, but if we actually examine, we don't tend to remember. Also at funerals, how come we only tend to say good things or say a cliché "he/she will be looking down on us, smiling at us". If God does not exist, then you have to ask what is the goal of life? To give your best shot

Conclusion pt 1: Those of some of the arguments, obviously their are little 'ifs' and buts. But this is the groundwork.

Observations/Comments from a non-general perspective:
[1] The God is paganism is very simple and finite - you see him/her in the mirror every day. If God was that simple, I would be incredibly disappointed, because if you analyse your life, it is really disappointing. In fact we only know some of the answers, enough for some to have faith, but not having all answers is more comfortable, then to simply know/have answers to everything.

[2] The writer of the book of Ecclesiastes was a philosopher, who observed how good men and bad men suffered the same fate of death. He also noted the futility of things such as riches and work. Especially because of the fact, that people die, and don't really end up benefiting the very goals and things they worked towards. For example, the people that died serving in wars did not end up benefiting their labours, but rather we who are left behind.

[3] Christians believe that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God, and they also believe that God has given enough clues in creation and in the conscious/moral reason and rationality of creation and the mind of man, to know that God exists. In fact they believe that God has indeed written is laws on our hearts and that our conscious bears witness when we break the standards of God's law (what is good)

[4] The fact that we cringe at the idea of God's existence is something that is also well documented.

(From about here on, you may find disagreeable much...)

Specific Evidence:
(investigating the specific claims)

(1) If we consider for example the account of Jesus' resurrection, there is no just one historical source.
Of the New Testament, there are 20,000 thousand manuscripts, compared to less than 10 for other historical events/figures.
Of particular interest is the fact that there are least 4 separate distinct accounts of the resurrection. They differ on details, which rather than contradicting, actually provides validity. They have odd details, details that wouldn't be characteristic of a forgery or a made-up fairy story.
(e.g. the first person to see Jesus was a women in a time when women's testimony was seen as inferior to that of men in that historical period/context, and that if you were to make a story, you would not put the women as having key roles).

Other details include the presence of body-guards and a large stone that would have required several men to roll away, yet the women didn't bother to get anyone to help them roll away the stone. And the fact that the stone was rolled away, the tomb was empty as well). Some of these accounts also document an attempted cover-up by the Pharisees who were indeed envious of Jesus.

(2) Historical writings from pagan/Roman sources verify the existence of Jesus as many people would acknowledge existed and also verify the claims of the Christians, and the very fact that they are being persecuted back then (as indeed they are today). Recently a source was discovered other than the accounts we call the Gospels, that affirmed a miracle that Jesus performed.
Most people nowadays view Jesus as a good teacher but slightly misguided, some people recognise that he performed miracles, others trust in him.

In fact back then it was a bit easier, because you could ask a person, and they would testify that they had indeed seen the Jesus after his death IRL (in the flesh). Paul even lists specific names and numbers.

Some would then argue, did Jesus die? Well according to the Roman historian Tacitus, he did. And analysing John's account particularly seems scientifically accurate that Jesus had indeed died at the hands of the Roman crucifixion methods.


Other interesting evidence:
The Bible is actually a collection of books written over several centuries apart, different writers. Jews accept what constitutes most of the Old Testament (22 books, of which a lot of the later books are split up by Christians into separate writings)
*predicted can be replaced by prophesied

The book of Daniel for example was written when Babylon was in power, and predicts* that the king of Greece would defeat the Persian empire before it actually happened.
The book of Jeremiah written even earlier when the kingdom of Israel was still in power, predicted that Judah would be defeated by Babylon, and that even Egypt would be defeated by Babylon; and also that the Persian ruler that would release the exiles back to Judah's name is Cyrus.
Jesus even prophesised of the fall and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, as well as the pagan desolation of the temple that followed afterwards by Hadrian.

Jesus even prophesised of the persecution of his followers. In fact, the apostles of Jesus; as well as Paul, all died at the hands of the Romans because of their testimony to Jesus. James, the brother of Jesus was beheaded. Stephen was stoned, Peter crucified as well.

The other thing is the countless prophecies which refer to the work of Jesus, notably in the later half of Isaiah which was written 700 BC and also in the Psalms written earlier, even all the way back to Genesis 3 (said to be written by Moses approximately 3000 years before Jesus).

-----------------
To conclude, the evidence is there. The question is whether there is SUFFICIENT evidence, for you to believe that God exists. For some people there isn't. For some people there is, but then there are other philosophical problems or paradoxes to deal with. Still others there is, and they are willing to believe. I can't speak very well for other religions, but I am sure some of them would be able to present a similar case.

We should always given a reason for why we believe what we believe.

 

[SylviaB]

"you can't explain where the universe came from therefore a the claims of a pedophile warlord slave-trader from the sixth century about the nature of god are correct"

 

[dan964]

anyway
the conclusion of the matter to the question "Does God exists?"
has been constantly debated for long time
so I am not expected it to be resolved yet.

"John 20:29 - Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” He is talking about blind faith. You don't need to see to believe. At least if you believe in that certain religion. .

That does not mean however that people follow him 'blindly' persay, yes "You don't need to see [him] to believe.", but you do need to affirm that the testimony about him is true to believe. The same can apply to other ideologies to some extent. The question you then have to ask is "what do I believe?", "why do I believe it?"

It's a bit tricky because as I mentioned all faith is personal and different to everyone. And because of that I don't get why anyone cares to disprove or prove their own and other's beliefs.

It also depends on what you would define as 'proving' or 'disproving'. Faith is indeed personal, and differs from person to person. But people have reasons for believing what they do.

May I add, I don't totally disagree. People indeed put their faith in different things. The question to ask is what should I be putting my faith in, and why?

 

[dan964]

"you can't explain where the universe came from therefore a the claims of a pedophile warlord slave-trader from the sixth century about the nature of god are correct"

you can explain that the universe had a beginning though?
the question with that kind of evidence*[1] is then, if God exists, what is he like?
Is the Christian right? Or is Islam right?*[2] Or is the atheist right in saying that they all wrong? etc.

And no I don't necessary disagree nor agree with the statement. It just seemed like it wasn't really in response to anything. I am more likely to agree to some extent that said.

*[1] evidence pertaining to the universe's origins/complexity of life.
*[2] I can guess your response to that q by your sig so no need to respond.