81h

God is disprovable. Everything is in the realm of proof if it is considered to exist. Proof is not an opinion, if it were, dogma would be true. Logic is the only thing that distinguishes false from true, valid from invalid, proof from disproof.

All human knowledge, even that os science, is subordinated to philosophy since philosophy is required to validate any knowledge, including scientific knowledge. Plato might say physics is just a worthless thing for us, Aristotle would say physics is imperative for us to understand what makes up the second half of epistomology.

When it comes to logic, it is required to prove things. Before math there was the logic of language, so we can say that non-mathematic systems can still be proven to a high degree of accuracy. If this was not so, mathematics would be senseless.

So when it comes to God, it cannot be disproven by physics because physics is not philosophical like God is. I hate it when physicists try to be philosophers.

Anyway...lets jump around, let's say that existence exists and reality is absolute, we know this because it is required for us to even question wether or not it is. So that is like the major premise of all logic to follow.

All that God is, don't play with the definition and say God is anything held with beleif...is impossible. Let's take omnipotence and omnicience, they are both impossible as long as the law of identity prevails, which means, nothing in infinite. Specifically speaking, God cannot be all powerful or all knowing. Can can if God is only fiction.

God cannot create existence since it would first require consciousness BEFORE existence, which is impossible. This means God has no choice about existing, it means God didn't choose reality.

The next thing is that if God were indestructable, God would have no need for value, i.e., humans. God would have no valid need for humans, unless it were all on irrational whim, and this irrational whim is fictional and is followed by monotheists. It means God is ammoral.

So God doesn't not exist, if God is accepted as fiction and just that. These would be some truly deluded people....

nanofever

What if god is just a 4th dimensional(Time-Space) being ?

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

81h

4 dimensions, 11 dimensions. I understand all that, but all it proposes is changing the definition of God.

Under that theory, that I once beleived in, God has no will, God is still nothing in particular. The theory seriously lacks substance.

filtherton

I think that when you try to define god as one certain thing, you really miss the point of what god is; that is many things to many people. Some people think god is omniprescient, some don't. It is true that some definitions of god contradict themselves, but science does that too(hence the search for a unifying theory).

DownwardSpiral

You cannot 100% prove that God exists, no matter how hard you try, it's impossible.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

CSflim

someone could easily claim that you cannot 100% prove that the table in front of you exists, no matter how hard you try.

__________________

DownwardSpiral

Alright, you can touch a table, you can sit on a table, you can see a table. Can you see God? Can you touch God? I think not, and if you say you can you're lying.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

filtherton

You can't actually prove anything completely. You might think you're touching the table, but allegedly matter is 99% space, so really, you can't even touch yourself (so why are my palms all hairy?). Besides, tell me that you know for certain that the sun is going to come up tomorrow and i will call you a liar.

Every act you undertake as a human is based on some sort of faith. Would you drive anywhere if you had no faith in the competence of any other driver on the road? Would you ever go to the doctor if you lacked faith in his/her abilities? Trying to write off theists because their beliefs are based on faith alone ignores the simple fact that, if not for faith, none of you would get out of bed in the morning.

QuasiMojo

you prove me not

I prove you not.

So There

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

QuasiMojo

<*>

__________________
AzAbOv ZoBeLoE

empu

But surely under this "there is faith everywhere" model faith varies. You have greater faith in your doctor to prescribe appropriate medication than you would in your waiter at TGIF, or in a tree stump. What is it about your doctor that warrants that greater faith?

filtherton

Whether the faith is greater or not is irrelevant to my current argument. Faith is faith is faith. You can't call bulshit on something just because it is based on faith without acknowledging that everything is based on faith.

empu

Right, so let's explore what this implies. If everything is based, at least at some level, on faith, then doesn't that shift the "what is bullshit" question down a notch to the question of "when is faith justified"?

A: Believing that David Koresh was a prophet is bullshit because it's based on faith.
B: That's an invalid argument because all belief is based on faith in some way.
A: Fair enough. Believing that David Koresh was a prophet is bullshit because having faith in such "truth" is unjustified.

filtherton

I don't think the mere act of having faith, whether in david koresh or george bush, can be called bullshit and invlidated thusly. I think faith can be misplaced, but when it comes to matters of religion and the afterlife, who the hell is anyone to question what anyone chooses to have faith in?

prosequence

I was going to stay out of this thread for the simple fact Knifemissile would not define what he would accept as "Proof" when asked. That said, this thread has taken the path of many before it and has people with faith in God pitted against those who don't (Good vs Evil ?). So whether we are trying to prove that God, Atheists or Dragons exist, it might be best to state what you will accept as "Proof".

__________________
And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

KnifeMissile

Give me a break, prosequence. I've stated several times where I wanted this thread to go and, let me tell you, this isn't it!

Besides, you needn't know what I consider "proof" to answer the question. All that's important is what you consider proof. If "proof" to you is a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart, well, then you've answered the question. Someone might try to disuade you and say that this is no criterion for proof but that doesn't change the fact that it was enough to convince you!

It's tempting to restate my intentions for this thread but I have already done so and no one cared, so...

Mantus

Good question prosequence,

Some one once told me that the only god worth having is one that interacts with humanity. Otherwise it doesn’t matter if one exists or not. I whole-heartedly agree with this.

I would say that proof of god, would have to be knowledge of not just the concept of god; but knowledge of a carnal and objective nature of god. For the actions that we perform based on our knowledge of god are very real.

Yet we must ask, what if a concept is actually correct. This takes us to the next topic, that of faith.

Faith is simply staking one’s bet that one’s knowledge is correct. Faith is in no way irrational. It is based on odds. I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has always come up. It may not, but the odds are it will, therefore I will act accordingly. If I worry about the sun not coming up tomorrow then my life would be rather difficult. Therefore I must suppress my anxiety about there being a chance of my knowledge being flawed and go on with my life. I have faith in the sun rising tomorrow.

Yet if we base our actions on imagined concepts rather then corporeal knowledge then we have a very high chance that our actions are unjustified.

When it comes to the concept of god the problem that too many people run into is that they do not separate the borrowed real aspects of religion and god from the subjective aspects. For example: people have faith in god and notice that they are moral. At this point people see that god (a concept) brings froth morality (an real subject), and therefore if god is connected with a subject in reality then god must be real as well. The flaw here is that any person can become moral without faith in god, morality is only connected to god if one makes a conscious decision to do so.

The reason this happens is because of the fact that concepts borrow from reality. Concepts do this to seem more probable, for improbable concepts are useless. Religion does this as well. The ideas of science, philosophy, ethics and spirituality are all borrowed from humanity. They existed before the concept of god and will exist without the concept of god. The only knowledge that we should be concerned with is that of the actual godly being[s].

Therefore we must ask: what knowledge do we have of god? I say that we have none, at least none that is great enough to have faith in.

feelgood

Do I believe god exist? Nope
Why? Simply because nobody has ever EVER given me a solid evidence, something that I could touch, see, smell, feel which is the very definition of real. (Don't even start the matrix crap).

Most of you would say that mathematics is the basics of our life right? It's absolute, can't be proven wrong. But alot of people doesn't know this, there's two kinds of math. Realism and Unrealism.

Everything that we've proven that exists fits within the definition of mathematics realism. God only exist in mathematics unrealism simply because the equation doesn't fit or work out.

The problem is the definition of God. What is God? Some say he created existance. How could God created existance if he did exist? How did he come to existance? Some people say that God created Mankind. The bible says so, alot of religion says so through the story of Adam and Eve. But this is proven wrong by science as it found that mankind was created through evolution. Some say that God is the ultimate being, the one with infinity knowledge and wisdom. The man who knows all.

There are hundreds of questions surrounding God. Does he exist? Why do we refer him as a male not a female? The pope claims he's a man, how he knows? Claims that he talks to God directly. Why doesn't the pope let others talk to God? What gives the pope the right to talk to God? Does God determine that rights? etc etc

Alot of people believes in the bible. If you had a group of 100 people all circled up and the first person says something and it gets passed on to the next person and so on so forth. It finally gets around back to the first person. Is the first person gonna hear what he originally said? Nope. That's exactly what 2000 years of bible is all about.

It really boils down to your very own definition of "God". My definition of God? Just an another way for humanity to deal with life. Life is hard, and we use God as a way to deal with it, to believe that there is something after life so that we wouldn't have to believe that it was all in vain.

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

duckznutz

When I was a child I prayed to God for a new bicycle. I waited and waited and waited and then one day the doorbell rang and a large box was delivered . . . . . inside was a new set of golf clubs my father had ordered . . I was somewhat disappointed and my faith in god wavered for a moment . . . . . then I realised that praying to god for a new bicycle was wrong . . . God just doesnt work that way . . so I stole a bicycle from a kid on the next street and prayed to god for forgive me! . . . result!

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Kakos

Fair enough then... God guides some of my actions through feelings and intuition. Since the "proof" is individual.... it can not be refuted.
For those who don't believe yet... keep searching and asking questions... it's the only way you'll find Him.

__________________
There are 3 types of people in this world... those who can count and those who can't.

KAKOS

mac Daddy

Sort of like others have said. Everything must come from something. Nothing can be created from nothingness. As time goes forward so we can assume that there is a beginning. If there is a beginning to all things which is logical, then there must be nothing before the beginning of all things. Something from nothing being an impossibility, it must be created. Proof that G-d exists.

Mantus

This is all I get…

Every one seems to talk about their beliefs as if they are personal, incorporeal or subjective yet from their beliefs come statement that are carnal in nature.

“God guides some of my actions through feelings and intuition”

“Everything must come from something. Nothing can be created from nothingness.”

Both these statement imply knowledge of god in our reality, can any one tell me how such knowledge was obtained?

Tman144

Why does everybody assume there is a begining? Matter cannot be created or destroyed, it has always exsisted and always will.

About the flood thing, any culture will experience a flood eventually, and when they do, they will most likely write about it. Just because lots of culture write about a flood doesn't mean they all shared the same flood. Its been proven that for the entire world to flood in 40 days it would have to been raining at such a force that a human would be pulverized very quickly.

Also, I think my soul is broken or something because I don't get any warm fuzzy feeling in my heart.

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

Gertie

There need not have ever been a beginning or First Cause. If you can conceive of infinity into the future, why not into the past? And even if an entity or being of some kind created the world in which we live, who's to say that was the one and only creation? We don't begin to have the knowledge to even have a conversation about God, which is why it always comes back to faith.

datalink7

Several people have mentioned "why does everybody assume there is a beginning?"

I would have to say "I don't know." In fact, I think a beginning is an impossibility. Since you can't get something from nothing, there couldn't have been a beginning because then something would have come from nothing. The only conclusion that you can come to is that there is no beginning and no end to "time" (which is a human invention anyway).

__________________
Ashes and diamons
foe and friend
we are all equal
in the end.

tecoyah

Mantus, The knowledge of God is obtained thru personal spiritual growth, and an understanding of the limitations of human perception. No one person can offer difinative proof of the existance of a creation entity, or supreme being. Proof of your God comes from within yourself and is as personal as life itself.Most of this thread consists of religious debate and has little to do with proof. .....God and Religion, need to be seperated, to understand either one.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Mantus

Therefore god is just a subjective concept. God is theoretical. We have no knowledge of an objective god that actually exists and interacts which humanity.

I am arguing for such a devine being; a god that is opposite of the one[s] which so many religions portray and sell to humanity.

DownwardSpiral

Yet? I don't plan on believing at all.



Coulden't have said it better myself, Mantus.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

dragon2fire

frist off doward sprial i agree with you

but you cant disprove the existince of god either not 100%

tbc

I don't have any imaginary friends, and I think unquestioning faith leads only to manipulation. Only the weak willed and the corrupt need religion to justify their actions.

Tman144

You can't disprove the existince of flying, invisible, space monkeys either, but I'm not going to lead my life based on a book someone told me they wrote, would you?

__________________
"Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

Giltwist

St. Thomas Aquinas came up with five very good "proofs" of the existence of some sort of a god. In skimming this thread, I get the impression that many of you think that if you find a problem with the Christian definition of God there is no god. Aquinas was very clever in applying almost no doctrine to his proofs, making it more universal.

Here is a link to a summary of this text.

http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm

Mantus

Aquinas attaches objects (movement, design, humans) to a concept (god) and claims that the reality of the object proves the reality of the concept. The problem is that there is no proof of a link between the objects and the concept.

I will give another example of this. Take the statement “God is life”. Life exists while god is questionable; there is no proven link between the two. While “life”, by itself will exist with or without “god” attached to it, “god” becomes a subjective concept as soon “life” is removed.

We gain no objective knowledge and god remain hypothetical.

Let me go though each of Aquinas' arguments to illustrate this.

First Way: The Argument From Motion

1) Nothing can move itself.
2) If every object in motion had a mover, then the first object in motion needed a mover.
3) This first mover is the Unmoved Mover, called God.

Movement is created though forces. Therefore the first motion can be set by the first force and god is not necessary.

Second Way: Causation Of Existence

1) There exists things that are caused (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, ther must be an uncaused first cause called God.

Why can nothing be caused by itself? If it can be assumed that god was caused by itself then why cant anything else do the same? Also the universe is unified. It follows not chains of cause but rather everything interacts to create one cause.

Third Way: Contingent and Neccessary Objects

1) Contingent beings are caused.
2) Not every being can be contingent.
3) There must exist a being which is necessary to cause contingent beings.
4) This necessary being is God.

Same as the creation argument; why is god needed to create a contingent being?

Fourth Way: The Agrument From Degrees And Perfection

St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example one may say that of two marble scultures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, one has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be an perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.

The fact that qualities can be infinite is an assumption in itself. Beauty for example can have limits on any particular object. Just as perfection; for example a circle cannot be any more perfect then it already is. Also if there was such a thing as an ultimate quality then it is not necessary that it resides in one being, or any being at all. It is quite possible that the potential is held within the universe itself.

Fifth Way: The Agrument From Intelligent Design

The final Way that St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of has to do with the observable universe and the order of nature. Aquinas states that common sense tells us that the universe works in such a way, that one can conclude that is was designed by an intelligent designer, God. In other words, all physical laws and the order of nature and life were designed and ordered by God, the intelligent designer.

Lets say that there is a one in infinity chance of everything falling into place just right so that the world we have around us exists. While the odds may seem very slim, it can happen and obviously it did happen. One might say that this is more extreme then the concept of god. I would argue that, because god does not explain existence. For what intelligent designer created god, and the god that created that god and so on? If god in all his complexity and infinity always was and always will be, then the universe can always be in the same fashion without the existence of god. Omitting god from the universe simplifies the model.


Each of St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments assume that god is necessary. That is the flaw.

Giltwist

From whence came the first force?

In the universe, scientists have made it patently clear that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation. The difference here is subtle, a deity, by definition, is not bound to such things as they are not limited to physicality.

Sticking to your circle example, mathematically speaking, there is a more perfect circle than a circle, its a sphere. There is a more perfect sphere than a sphere, its a hypersphere, and so forth. In a logical frame of reference, qualities are infinite.

Again, refer to the unmoved mover, you are requiring that the deity be limited to our plane of existence. Also, were the universe infinitely old, since there IS a slim chance of a deity existing, he would HAVE to exist. And if the universe isn't infinitely old it has to come from somewhere.

Peace be with you,
G.

Mantus

Why can’t something come out of nothing? Science says that it is imposible, perhaps it is, or perhaps we are missing a peice of knowledge. You for example say that a “deity, by definition, is not bound to such things as they are not limited to physicality”. Therefore you say that a deity created something out of nothing. I follow this same logic and say that something came out of nothing. I exclude the deity as it simply complicates things. The necessity of a deity is not proven.

Then there is the assumption that the universe had a beginning. Why does it need a beginning? There would be no need for a creator if the universe has no beginning. Though I can argue against the necessary existence of god in both cases.


I am not a big math or geometry buff so correct me if I am wrong. But isn’t a circle a part of a sphere? A circle within a sphere seems no more perfect then it was before. Therefore a circle is perfect and a sphere is perfect and neither make’s the other any less perfect. All I am trying to illustrate is that perfection can be a subjective concept in itself. Though my main point is that the perfection does not have to come from a god; it can be inherit in the universe.

I apologize, I misled by using the word “universe”. I was not referring to the universe of our plane of existence. I was using the word universe in referrence to existence as a whole.

If god came into existence after the universe, would this deity qualify for the concept of a supreme being? Also even in infinity it is possible for odds never to happen.

I went over this above.



Also, tell me what you people think of this:

It kind of bothers me that we use subjective concepts to describe another subjective concept. For example we don’t know if the universe is finite or infinite, yet both are used in arguments for god. We can’t agree on what love really is yet we attribute it to god. We are not sure if there is an afterlife or what it could be like, yet we call god the gatekeeper. Omniscience, omnipotence, perfection, afterlife, soul, all these concepts and more are often used to prove god. I think that two subjective concepts can’t be used to create an objective item. We need a link to objectivity.


Cheers.

Giltwist

A deity can create something because it is free of that burdensome thing known as causality. An extrauniversal something is necessitated by the existence of causality in our universe. SOMETHING had to move unmoved which is impossible by physics.

Calling a circle part of a sphere is like calling a grain of sand part of an infinitely long beach. There are infinitely many circles in a sphere. A sphere surpasses the two dimensional world of circled. I suggest reading Flatland by A. Abbot Abbot (not a stutter). In the same way, you can create unbounded attributes.

Our plane of existence IS existence as a whole. The astral plane and such are as much beyond our world as a sphere is beyond the xy plane.

Incorrect, in infinite time all possible outcomes occur with equal probability - I believe 1. Brush up on your statistics and calculus.

If it could be done purely objectively at this point it would be science not philosophy. Until then, all you can do is create comparisons. FUrthermore, I find the fact that proofs of the existence of god are independant of so many of our hypotheses is evidence that a deity must exist TAUTOLOGOUSLY.

Peace be with you,
G

:::OshnSoul:::

Oh, boy where to start.......
A lot of you I have read your thoughts on proof of God and some of you believe there IS no God, just because of what others have told you and/or CANNOT show you proof of His existance. I could respond to this in a thousand different ways, but I wish to bring up some questions & ideas here:
The proof is not out there, you will never find proof- the answers have always been there about God, but the answers are not found outside of yourself. When one person may say God is one thing, while another says something completely different. All people have different "beliefs" and "facts" about God. Some say that Jesus dies for their sins, while others don't believe in worshiping a person. There are so many different religions and belief systems out there, and they all claim they are the one, true faith- that their way is the right way. So which is right? Are ANY of them the RIGHT one? Also, if there is a God, many of people immediately think "superior being", higher than us. Well, let's take for instance, this: "God created man in the image and likeness of Him". So, how could we be less superior, even born with sin? Couldn't we, for a minute, imagine outside of the box here and think that maybe we were created for His experience? That He experiences through us? And that with our experiences, we are recreating Him at every moment? And that it says that God has no ONE form- that He is everything and everone you look at? Every noise you hear? Every breath you take?
This God- called to be perfect, and to love every one of us unconditionally, yet this God is said to punish us by sending us to "Hell" if we disobeyed him or disbelieved Him? Well, "unconditional" is such a strong word and many don't stop to realize what it means: without condition or exception. I asked myself time and time again while attending church with my parents- So which is it? Does God love us unconditionally or doesn't He? Never did I understand that whole theory. How could we be loved unconditionally, yet we are given commandments to abide by, and if we break those, that we would be sent to Hell. I tell ya, for a while I was just as confused as some of you are.
Also, who says there has to be a "beginning"? How about- it could have always "been"- a continual spiraling cycle of recreation? God always has "been" and always "will be" even if a flower dries up, even if a human passes on. And all of everything in life is in that cycle.
I studied every religion and belief out there to try to get an idea of what I believe in, but finally I realized that there was no answer "to be found", and that nothing seemed true. But the closest religion I came upon that represented how I felt inside was Taoism, which my Philosophy classmate practiced. Yet, still I wasn't comfortable with any specific religion.
But- back to the topic at hand- it honestly takes an open mind to realize and understand that you will find answers when you start listening to the questions you have and listen to yourself for answers. They are there, and they well come to you if you let them. The best way to do this is by distinguishing your feelings about certain things. Ask how you feel about God? The idea of there being a God- what feels "right" to you? Don't be afraid to explore yourself and don't be ashamed of what your feelings are about something. When you are not afraid, confused or embarrased, you will know that is your truth- finding answers from outside sources (which are not always the same which leads to confusion) will steer you away from Your Truth.

dy156

I didn't know whether to post this here or on the Darwinism thread, so I'll post it on both, because I have never heard this but it really made me think and I hope it generates discussion. It come from Greg Easterbrook, a guy that writes a football column, called the TMQ (Tuesday Morning Quarterback), that has football anaysis and alot of his thoughts on a wide range of topics. You can find threads about him and his column, and the controversy surrounding it in the politics or sports forums (fora?) Anyway, here it is.


article mentioned in column

link to full TMQ

doodah

i dontthink tehre can be proof of an higher being like od because he is a HIGHER BEING we cant see air but wwe know its there its kinda like that you cant see it but you know its there....

__________________
sometimes.. we all just gotta rock out with our cock out and hang out with our wang out... its just how it is....

datalink7

Why does there have to be a "beginning" to time? Or a "beginning" to the universe? Perhaps it has always been.

Time is a human invention anyway...

__________________
Ashes and diamons
foe and friend
we are all equal
in the end.