Proof that God exists?
 

Don't misunderstand me. I know that religion is a matter of faith and that the existence of God is not disprovable (and therefore, by definition, not scientific). My question is whether anyone actually thinks that the belief of God is not a matter of faith but rather that there is irrefutable proof He exists.

Is there any proof of God? What is it?

Descartes has a proof of God, read his meditations. I see problems with it but its one of the better ones.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

What do you accept as proof?

Proof is an opinion and I'm asking for yours. Try me...

Proof is an opinion? Then my entire existence is a lie! Nooo! *sob*

I know a lot of people who would disagree with this opinion. A proof, as opposed to theory or conjecture, is irrefutable within a given system; most opinions are comparatively weak in their support. A system, of course, must be built on some kind of assumptions or axioms.

One 'proof' I hear a lot is this: The universe came from somewhere, something. If we assume that conservation of energy holds, then all matter and energy currently in the universe has existed, in one form or another, since the beginning of time - we cannot obtain a universe from nothing. Where did all matter and energy originate from? If you claim the big bang, where did that originate from? We continue in a similar fashion until we reach a 'beginning' - at this point, we must show the original creation of all energy.

What do you think of that?

Unlike mathematics, life is not a formal system. As such, you cannot prove anything but that doesn't mean people don't think they have proof. Obviously, out here in the real world, the burden of proof is not as strict as it is in math. What constitutes proof ends up being an opinion.

I didn't realize I was starting a symantic argument...

Well then, what do you think of the 'proof' that I have presented?

Whether proof is opinion or not depends on what you are trying to prove. If someone hits you, and you feel him hit you, see him hit you, and the person and other witnesses agree that he hit you, then it can be proven that he hit you. It is not an opinion.

Life can be made a formal system, given certain conditions. Assume, for instance, that we exist, are in fact conscious free agents, and that others are in a similar situation. From these assumptions we can begin to prove many things that are not merely opinions. We do this on a regular basis.

Sorry, I didn't notice that you actually gave a "proof." I guess I was stuck on yoru first paragraph...

Anyway, that's no proof! I mean, you say that "we cannot obtain a universe from nothing."
First, why not? I mean, why must everything have a beginning and an end? Is it so inconceivable that the universe was always here and always will be? Must you model everything after yourself, from your birth (beginning) to your death (end)?
Secondly, God created the universe. This doesn't help! Where did God come from? He's eternal? Why couldnt' the universe be that?

I don't think this is the Christian argument for God. I don't think Christians need an argument for God, this being their faith and all, but some seem to have one none the less!

While I think most people will agree with your burden of proof here (including myself), there are some who would argue that you don't necessarily know that the things you are observing are real. However, that's a debate I have no interest in pursuing. If you can't agree on something like that, there's just no fun in debating further.

I don't think life can be made a formal system. I believe a formal system requires all statements to be propositions (true or false statements), which is not life! Do you love your wife? This statement is false! You get the idea...

Actually, this is a Christian argument for God - the one I get most often. And the problem with it is exactly as you state - they assume that time is finite and the universe is not eternal.

I don't have any vested interest in proving that God exists, since I'm not a believer, so this is as far as I'm going to go on this side of the argument.

There is faith, and then there is blind faith. Those that follow the latter are generally termed "idiots".

That whole page is like a big game of Connect the Celebrities. I dunno, it still doesn't prove anything to me. On with the topic, I'd rather believe that I am in charge of what I do. I don't like the fact that apparently 'god' has a destiny or path for me.

This is what I was going to bring up and I couldn't have said it any better.

HeeHee. I was planning on linking that too. So i will.
Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence

Kyo, the big problem with this proof, in my eyes, is that it doesn't come close to proving the existence of god. It does nothing of the sort.

All it proves it that there was some cuase external to the universe.

So what? How does that cause equate to God?
Why do people then take this "Ultimate Cause" and project onto it, such inexplicable characteristics as consciousness, morality, loving creator, all powerful, all knowing, bestower of imortal souls, etc etc etc...

I will be perfectly happy to accept a cause of our universe, external to it. Doesn't bring me any closer to believing in God however.

Al] thread I started on this subject

..or at least, Life is not a formal system who's rules we know.

That's just it Knife, there isn't any.

well you mangage to prove that everything comes form some were

this does not prove a all good or all powerful god

then again i am a atheist

I'd like to point something out:

I do not believe in God.

Therefore, any proof I present here is something I have heard - but obviously do not support myself, since if I did I would necessarily have to believe in God.

The holes in the 'proof' that I presented are obvious - I have used those arguments against this 'proof' in face-to-face argument and never recieved a satisfactory answer (ie "Well, if it wasn't God, what was it? Huh? Huh?").

Since no one else seems to have a contribution, I thought that presenting the justification that I encountered most often would fuel some meaningful discussion, but that hasn't happened so far ...

... because this argument is one-sided! Nobody has actually argued in favor of the existence of God - much less attempted to seriously prove it. We are all making huge circles around our central point - it isn't possible to prove that God exists.

<With a ton of implied sarcasm>

Here we go:

"I would love to believe that when I die
I will live again, that some thinking,
feeling, remembering part of me will continue.
But as much as I want to believe that and despite the
ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that
assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest
that it is more than wishful thinking." -- Carl Sagan

If Carl don't think it so, then it taint so!

</With a ton of implied sarcasm>

-SF

Apologies to Kyo, misunderstood your intentions.

As for the original question.

In principle it is entirely impossible to disprove the existence of god.
No matter what evidence you may put forward, the undeniable come-back is "that's just how god made it".
If you were to prove beyond doubt that evolution happened, and that the universe started from a big bang, and the universe is run by a set of formal laws, there is a simple and predictable rebuttal available to all theists.
In fact, this single rebuttal can be used in two ways:

1. Evolution and the Big Bang did not happen. I accept all of the evidence you have gathered, but all of that evidence was found within God’s universe. God created the universe, and as such it is not inconceivable that he created the fossils which you found which led you to your incorrect beliefs. Similarly for your evidence of the Big Bang. Why God decided to create the universe in such a way is not for us to attempt to understand. But he did.

And more rationally:
2. Evolution and the Big Bang did happen. They are the methods that God used to create and run the universe. This newly discovered Theory of Everything? Again, that just shows the rules which God designed when creating the universe.

In short, it is impossible, in principle to disprove the existence of God.

The opposite however, I don’t believe to be true, at least in principle.
Were God to introduce a new 11th commandment, and smite people with lightning bolts every time it is broken, he would do much in persuading me of his existence.
Or if he parted the clouds and had nice friendly chats with his loyal subjects. Or if he wrote a book, explicitly predicting certain events of the future. Or if he sent down his only son to die and rise from the dead. All of these things would certainly be considered as very weighty evidence.

Now obviously it would be impossible to construct a formal proof of the existence of god, simply on the basis that it is impossible to formally prove anything in the real world, as we are continuously reminded on these boards.
However, to me, overwhelming evidence is as good a proof as you can expect for anything (do rocks fall to the ground when you drop them?)

I don't think I have irrefutable proof that God exists. I also have no proof that evolution did/does not occur. I choose to believe that God exists based on my interrpretations of current evidence.

I see it this way - There is such order and planning in the universe. Everything can be explained mathematically and logically. Just the chemicals that make up our body are such that we are walking bombs and yet everything holds together and is proportioned such that we don't. I cannot imagine all the order and the control of energy that we have in our universe occuring because of chance? Our bodies alone are so interlinked that one function failing affects all the other functions in some way. To go through evolution and survive would be extremely difficult.

Believing in God is just as inconcievable to many who don't. Now If I'm wrong and my life ends I will find myself having done what good I could in my life and NOT facing a higher power. If I'm right - Then I don't get sent to hell or punishment or a lower life form because of it. To believe I compromise myself less I think - granted there are certain things I won't do but most of them go along with the laws of my nation anyway. I'm not hampering my self desires because of my belief in God. It only causes me to respect Him, his creation, and other human beings. It causes me to desire to be the best I can be. I could do those things either way I think. I just don't end up paying for it if I don't believe in Him and he ends up being a reality.

So in other words, you are arguing Pascal's Gambit - everyone should believe in God because you can't lose in the afterlife.

I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't a downside. After all, if it turns out that God does not exist, a large part of your life would be composed around a core of lies, and who really wants that? To study a Bible that isn't worth any more spiritually as your favorite library paperback. To attend Church and listen to sermons that lack truth or meaning. To worship a nonexistent deity, thanking Him for things that were the result of random chance, for things that other people, rather than some God, are responsible for.

Regardless, faith isn't that simple. If you don't believe in God, you can't just turn around and say, "Oh, I'll believe in Him because it's the smart thing to do." If the feeling and belief aren't genuine, you'll be going to Hell with all of the nonbelievers.

My attitude towards Pascal's Wager is summed up by Douglas Adams:

Link to excellent interview

Evolution is not a process of chance. Evolution is driven by selection, which is not random. So when you say that humans, or any life form for that matter, are way too complex to be the result of chance, you are right, because life is not a result of chance. Nor is it, in my belief a result of God. It is a result of evolution, which uses selection as a mechanism. So all you really have when you point out complexities in life is a Darwin Detector.

But back to the topic I agree with what CSFlim said.

in all honesty, you're wasting you're breath...

That may be, but this is a common error, and I am at least trying to remedy it among my limited audience.

I think that me feeling Him is enough proof.

I don't believe in God, I believe in Joe Peshi, I pray to Joe because he looks like a cat that can get shit done. Joe is real, I can see Joe.....and if I pray to Joe the chances of it doing anything are the same as if you prayed to your god. - Carlin

I think the belief in a god is very similar to the belief in a unified theory.
How much faith does it require to believe that there is a unified theory to be discovered? How much faith does it require to ignore the fact that some of the laws of physics as we know them completely contradict other laws? Science has gotten us this far, and it explains many things very well but at this point it doesn't seem to be fulfilling the purpose of explaining everything with consistency. I think the faith that one day science will explain away all mystery, or even that science is capable of explaining everything is very similar to the faith that the religious have when they think everything can be explained by a god. When it boils down to it, science and christianity have both failed to provide any sure evidence of what exists beyond what we can know.
I don't care what you believe, just don't pretend that you have any definative answers, because everything is based on faith.

From the earlier posted link:

163. ARGUMENT FROM WTC II
(1) Terrorists destroyed the WTC, killing thousands.
(2) An intact bible was found in the ruins.
(3) No, wait, it turns out it was a dictionary.
(4) Oh, well, God exists anyway.

Hahahaha, that's classic.

I can reply the same thing for the existance of God. You stated your reasons.. and I feel like quoting something in that quote
Thats what I say about God. See thus, my proof to you, is your proof to me. Lovely aint it? Also, My belief in God has nothing to do with whether or not the universe has always existed, or if someone started it. I do believe the bible explains the existance of US... maybe ou solar system.. but beyond that the bible doesn't really say much. So no its not inconceivable to me that the universe was always here and always will be, I just think the same about God as well.

GOD EXISTS BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HERE TALKING ABOUT HIM/IT/WHATEVER. THEREFORE GOD EXISTS - ITS LOGICAL. IF WE SPEAK OF SOMETHING - MY PHILOSPHY IS IT MUST EXIST.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you cant prove waht can not be proven.

Prove he exists?
Prove he DOESN'T exist.
har har. You can't really do either directly.

so if we speak of little green men on mars they exist, lolita?

Dilbert... Sunrise just nuetralized ya. You said that we can't prove to you that he exists... well I have yet to see stuff prove that he doesn't exist either. It works.. .just on both sides of the story to be technical, which is what i'm doing. :D

I do realize this is a double post folks, I just believe this post needed to be addressed seperately.
Lolita, I must stress to you to not get into it like this. Typing in caps like you're appauled to hear such a thing... it just doesn't work here. Not only do you look less civilized, but there are a lot of people who really don't believe, and so you gotta come off better than yelling. Just seeing what you say and with all those exlamation points.. it looks like you could easily be flamed. Not that flaming is condoned here, but if a bottle is opened.. people tend to use every drop.. hehe.

Btw, I'm not sure your philosophy is all that developed. If you still think so, then hmm.. What if there are really invisible aliens that watch us everytime we undress and take a shower and have sex... and even mess with us while we sleep? By your philosophy, just by me thinking of this would prove of their existance. I'm just not seeing it.

Oh and before you decide to yell at me.. I do believe in God, very much in fact.

It becomes a catch22 argument.

Either a) There is no proof God exists because He/She doesn't or:

b) There is no proof God exists because if there was, it would take away our free will, which God will not do.

You know I love this thread. I just wanted to point out that perhaps whether God exists or not isn't simply provable. We can make assumptions about God and then disprove them which is characteristically a straw man or... we can simply say that knowledge of such is outside the scope of human intelligence. It doesn't mean it exists and it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Whether or not it matters is open for debate. But it seems pretty pointless to argue the existence of a general God anymore a god than say ...Quetzacoatle.

P.S. Quetzacoatle Exists! Here's my proof:

http://www.iiipublishing.com/quetz.jpg

Actually, this thread didn't go in the direction I was hoping it would.

There are Christians that will call me insane and delusional for being even skeptical that He exists. I mean, what's with that? If you're going to take that kind of stance, you must have some kind of proof to be so sure, don't you? Or rather, to not understand that not everyone is going to be so sure...

While I have a solid faith that God exists, unless I physically see him I won't have any real 'proof'. Why? Because God and his existence are beyond our puny little minds' ability to understand fully.

The first question to ask would have to be , what defines individual reality. If someone has deep enough faith to create a god within the mind that SEEMS real to them....wouldnt that god become real?

At this point, my feeling is that believing in god is about on par with believing in vampires or smurfs.

I think that the problems with belief in God occur not when someone believes in Him/Her/It... but rather when they expect somebody else to.


There's an interesting little story by Carl Sagan which is a parable about God and believing.

knifemissle,

i think that when Christians say that they can't believe you question God's existence they mix up the principles of belief and proof. When i talk to Christians and atheists both, the conversation takes a turn for the ignorant when the 2 words are mixed.

I personally believe in God with very little internal doubt. I also believe he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ. Can I empirically prove his existence? not by any stretch of the imagination. But, I think, the use of proof seems irrelevant to faith anyway.

But the problems occur because I believe that as a tenet of your faith -you are supposed to convert others.

Matthew 28 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."

But your evidence for God is unconvincing... Many don't have faith and won't without proof.

But why do christians think I'm insane for not believing while there is no proof? Hell, I don't even need proof, just show me some evidence!

But there is none. Can't they understand my position?

to knife missile - we rely on faith notb proof or evidence thats what christianity is about a truth in our hearts we acnnot deny just as u cant deny feeling the emotions of love or hate - we cannot deny that god exists!!thank u

lolita, yeah, I understand that. What you don't seem to understand is this is the position of christians! A lot of them seem to think it's more than just blind faith. They seem to think there is tangible evidence. Why?!

does your belief mean that you know God exists? If so, then does that mean that faith or belief is a source of knowledge?

I was raised Christian. It's collective events and circumstances that support a Christians faith. Some become overzealous and expect everyone to see the things around them that suggest a supreme god. Those who call you insane do no good for the religion and they are misguided. It's a personal choice to believe in god or not. In any situation "Faith" is something that we know in our hearts and CANNOT be proven. If it was Proven then it would no longer be Faith but rather it would become Fact.

If you are asking for the events and circumstances that these people place their faith in here are a few. Revelation can be interpreted in such a way that some recent past history matches up with it. The order and balance in the natural world can be interpreted as being a result of divine planning. Historians from ancient times tend to collaborate the Bible record at least in certain world events. The locations for the people and places and even destruction of some places mentioned in the Bible have been followed by some archeologists and found to be accurate. Certain personal events in their lives will often collaborate their faith - such as a person missing their apt and then finding out that there was s serious accident in the intersection they would have passed through had they been on time. They credit the circumstance to divine intervention preventing them from being involved.

I hope this was what you were looking for.

My proof of God's non-existience is that every religion that believes in a God is localized. If God spoke through a burning bush in one area, why didn't he do it in other reigions? Why did he tell the native-americans he was a bear or a fox? If any religion got it "right", then shouldn't there be another religion that has exactly the same story? But only across the globe somewhere? Therefore, if our idea of God comes from these completly different religions it can be assumed that each of them simply made it up.

I was also raised in organized religion and found thru the years that some aspects were helpful in my life. I guess this is the essence of outgrowing something for I now realize I was in need of the faith because I had none in myself. As I came to understand the basic flaw in the church I was compelled to leave behind the dogma. What is the flaw? Isolation from the rest of the world. I have been able to gather much more insight into spirituality, now that I dont think everyone who thinks differently is wrong. I dont think any of the god symbols are wrong if they give people the crutch they require to function in society.

Just a thought. Most religions including some Native American foldlore - somewhere in their stories tell of a larger or major flood such as the one mentioned in the book of Genesis. In primitive times it would have been immpossible to know that the flood wasn't just a major one and not world-wide.

Nope, for to give proof would deny purpose.

Anyone can say they believe something.
 

Anyone can say they believe something. People were absolutely sure the world was flat. Shamans danced every morning to make the Sun rise. Men eat tiger testicles to make their libido stronger. Astronomers though that all planetary orbits were perfect circles for they believed that god would only create the heavens out of perfect circular trajectories. Thieves sprinkled powdered human bone around houses they were robbing so the ones inside would sleep like the dead. Sailors were afraid that the horizon was the edge of the world. The example can go on for several thick volumes. The point is that in every case the people “believed”. Yet they were wrong.

Now some may say “but God hasn’t been disproven”. Well frankly, so hasn’t the bogeyman. If we are to look at one hint that god is a human creation, then we must look for the time he was created and I assure you there was such a moment. Tribal cultures never believed in god. In Asia people still do not believe in “the god”.

Then there is the obvious argument that the tribal cultures were not developed enough to understand god. And that the Asian cultures knew of god but interpreted him in a different way.

Both of these arguments have the obvious flaw. IF the only proof of god that you people have is the fact that you “feel” his existence. Then even the most primitive culture should be able to “feel” the same way. For our feelings were around long before our advanced intellects were sharpened by modern society. Infact these tribal people should have been the very first people to “feel” god because they were not inhibited by todays advanced logical thinking that makes so many question the existance of god. Also if all knowledge and understanding of god comes from the “heart” then the Asian and many other cultures which do not practice monotheism should not exist. For surely they would know in their “hearts” that there is only the one and all powerful god, because the knowledge of god does not come from the senses nor the intellect but from the source itself.

I think my Cultural Anthropology Professor put it best in covering evolution. Religion is strictly a matter of the supernatural. Being that it is SUPERnatural, nothing natural (in this case, human science) can ever deal with it. Now that I've covered that, I would like to cover this You say that eaveryone should be able to “feel” (god) the same way.... I am unclear why you think they should all feel god THE SAME WAY. Whether one is monotheist or polytheist, the fact remains that they are looking at the world and saying "something must have created this!" Perhaps that is the common trait shared across the world and it's cultures. Now, I am aware that there are some groups of "primitive" people who don't have any concept or belief in god/gods, but the truth is that the belief in deities and the supernatural is a uniting human cultural trait that different groups of people all came up with on their own. As a person of faith, I personally feel that when people look around the world and come up with gods, they are "feeling" the supernatural and choosing different ways to understand it. Just because people can't accurately understand it, or agree on the conditions doesn't mean that an All-Powerful doesn't exist. But, again, no human can or will ever be able to prove the Supernatural.... but now you have my two cents.

I will try to be clearer on this.
 

I will try to be clearer up my thoughts on this.

As every one admits there is no rational explanation or proof of god’s existence. The only proof given is a feeling.

This “feeling” does not have a corporal or a rational origin. It is simply there. Therefore this feeling comes before understanding. When some one says they “feel” that god exists then they are saying that their knowledge was obtained from another source. In this case a god. For if the knowledge was obtained from a corporal source then we would be able to share it with others. Therefore this knowledge came from an incorporeal source (outside our senses). If this knowledge did come from an external source then it cannot be corrupted by our senses nor our consciousness. Since the knowledge is simply THERE. So you cannot say that people would interpret god differently in this case. For interpretation would mean that they obtain the concept of god from their senses. Every person who believes in god says that they never used their senses or their rational mind to obtain the knowledge of god. Those that have attempted to obtain the knowledge of god thought their senses have all failed.

To give an example: if some one believes “…in God with very little internal doubt.” and “…also [believes] he is the one described in the ancient Hebrew texts and the one proclaimed by Christ.” Then their source of knowledge must come from the god himself. For they have no rational proof of their beliefs. The person has some very profound and intimate knowledge about the god they believe in. Yet if they came upon this knowledge by way of god, then why didn’t every other culture come upon this same knowledge? There is nothing to misinterpret for the knowledge is supposed to be pure and come from the source itself. If the person, whose quote I used was truly right about god then why doesn’t every other person on the planet have the same knowledge?

The argument that there can be different interpretations of a higher being is flawed. Interpretation of knowledge requires rational though. Which means that if a person obtains a “feeling” and then rationalizes that this feeling comes from god, then there must be rational trail to the conclusion. We would be able to trace his line of thought. Yet we can’t.

There are two possible conclusions to how we obtain the knowledge of a divine being; those are: a) god gives us all basic knowledge of him or b) we simply feel something and then interpret that feeling as the existence of god.

Both cases don’t work. For if a god gave us pure knowledge then all people should see god the same way. Yet we don’t. On the other hand if we simply interpret a “feeling” as god, then we being the imaginative creatures that we are, have simply created the idea of god to interpret the “feeling”.

Since the knowledge of a god from an external source is a flawed concept then that only leave us with the idea that we created god to interpret things we don’t understand in this world. This comes at no surprise since the concept of god is very human and stems from our own nature. We are a selfish animal and feel very comfortable with the idea of a human being (or a being amicable to us) controlling the universe and our own fate. We accept this concept with ease for our most primal instinct (of proliferation) approves highly of this idea, since it ensures immortality, and that is all our gene’s want from us.






note: i am still learning to express myself in an understandable fashion. If any one has any tips (link to websites or books) on improving my comunication/writing skills please dont be shy and send me an e-mail to : guerrilla_poet@hotmail.com

Cheers

Somewhat agree, but it isn't faith so much as it is understanding our limits.

Science progresses while religion and Faith decay. There will always be limits to our understanding. You will always find people who will argue that what is beyond that limit is God, or some construct that they "believe" in. That is a cop out. Accept the fact that we have limits. Explore those limits and learn. But do not preach to me about what is beyond those limits when you have no better knowledge than I. The Prime Mover theory is an example.

From what I observe, most people (but not all) ultimately want to relate to God as a creator, of themselves primarily, and of everthing else secondarily. "Proof" just seems to me to be a self-serving confirmation of that belief or disbelief, whatever the case may be.

I'm convinced that any self-described thinker/philosopher can only relate to God via a leap of faith, leaving behind proof.

Science at least, freely admits it will likely be proven wrong at some point in the future....thus the term "Theory". Most religions could never admit such a thing....it would destroy itself without faith.

even the phrase "proven wrong" implies and assumes quite a lot about what it "true" and "real"

Religions destroy themselves over and over. Christianity is one of thousands of historical religions, and despite the death of almost all religions, more replace them all the time. What is the impetus for that?

Is it more or less rational to put all your faith in something that, from the outset, admits that it is most likely wrong(science), or something that promises divine truth, and really can't be proven wrong(religion)?

All of you who bring up the ideas that the world was once thought to be flat and the sun was once thought to orbit the earth fail to mention that science was responsible for those theories. Science eventually corrected itself, but i think you need to examine that before you place science above spirituality because science is less faith based. How many of you have actually seen an atom with your own eyes? How many of you have actually personally verified the speed of light? What do you do, just take the word of science as gospel? Sounds like an act of faith to me.

I trust in science because it questions itself and seeks to disprove itself. Without that approach it scientific advance would remain at a stand still...much like religion which refuses to question itself or seek answers.

I do not need to see an atom itself if I can see quantifiable tests that demonstrate it is real. I also see the results. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the electricity lighting your home, etc.

[edit] In response to filtherton

It should be noted that religion also “corrects” itself, much like science. It has evolved quite a bit over the years. We went a long way from believing in ancestral spirits and magic to monotheism that incorporates social and philosophical values.

As I have shown in my previous post religion doesn’t provide any answers whatsoever.

There is another argument that I would like to add to what I have already posted.
 

In the posts above have shown that direct knowledge of god from the source of the divine being itself has never occurred on this planet. I also displayed that knowledge of god though interpretation cannot result in the truth about god.

I now realized that there is a third way to obtaining the knowledge of god that so many people use to justify their beliefs. The third way of obtaining knowledge of god is that of affirmation. Many people say that the have a feeling of corectness about the scripture they believe in. As if god is telling them that they are on the right path.

This is actually another side of the “feeling of god” confirmation to god’s existence that people like to use. The difference is that in this case the knowledge is obtained first which is then confirmed by the “feeling”. So the same argument that was used to disprove the “feeling followed by knowledge” case can be used.

If this “feeling” is to be taken as a direct sign from god that one’s beliefs are in fact valid, then why is there such a colorful variety of different beliefs though out the world? Some of them are even contradicting of one another. If god personally came and put a stamp of approval on just one belief, then obviously we would only have one belief in the world. Surely if there was only one true religion then all other religions would die out because their worshipers would not have that same “feeling” of truthfulness that god gives the worshipers of the true religion. Yet we don’t, people all over the world follow different religions. Even within the popular religions there is differences of opinion and practice. So this “feeling” could not have originated from god.

The feeling of justification that people get about their beliefs has some rather obvious sources.

The first source is social. Humans enjoy the company of others and enjoy acceptance for we are a pack animal. There fore just as our instincts enjoy and accept the idea of eternal life, our instincts also encourage us to gravitate towards social groups for there is strength in numbers and a higher opportunity to finding a mate. Therefore the more people belong to a certain religion, the more it appeals to humanity.

The second (and in my opinion) more important source of a human’s contempt with religion is its philosophical, social and moral values. These values are not unique to any one religion. Our moral and social values have existed long before organized religion. The reason that religions differ so much is because each one chooses to focus on just a small portion of the moral, social and philosophical dilemma. Each religion has a certain selective set of standards that, if attained would in turn solve all the other human dilemmas. Or so the author[s] believes. The very thing that makes them so appealing at first (their attempt to simplify humanity) is also their eventual downfall for their practitioners begin to see the holes in their scriptures.

With that I believe that I have successfully refuted both sides of the “feeling” and “knowledge of god from god” arguments that people use as proof of their understanding of god[s] and to justify their religions.

Cheers

Well done, this will be a never ending debate...simply because you cannot refute a feeling, It is real. It is important to note that it is a "feeling"though.proof of god is not forthcoming, because it CANNOT exist, except in a human mind.

For me, faith and reason were explained pretty well by a philosopher named Soren Kierkegaard. There are many places to read about him and his work, but a famous piece of his was called "Fear and Tremblng". Here's a link to get one started with Kierkegarrd and the leap of faith he talks about.
_____________

"Kierkegaard's point is that no matter how rigorous your logical system, there will always be gaps. As these gaps are logical gaps, it is futile to try and bridge them. Instead, they can only be breached by a leap of faith. What characterises a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it. Faith is by definition that which cannot be proven or disproved. That is why a leap of faith is undertaken in 'fear and trembling".

"In moral terms, that meant, for Kierkegaard at least, embracing the religious life. This was Kierkegaard's third sphere of existence. The first was what he called the aesthetic, which was a life dedicated to the instant, perhaps best summed up in the phrase carpe diem - 'seize the day'. The second was the ethical, where one tries to live in accordance with eternal values. For Kierkegaard, both are incomplete, in terms of rationality and of satisfying human needs. But, as we have seen, these gaps cannot be closed through a rational synthesis. Only Christianity, which paradoxically combined the temporal and the infinite in the God-man Jesus Christ, bridges this gap. But embracing Christianity requires leaving rationality behind and taking a bold leap of faith."

tecoyah

I must be really bad at explaining things. I have refuted the “feeling”.

You say: “Proof of god is not forthcoming”. Then you contradict yourself by saying that it is in the human mind. So the concept of god is there, otherwise we would not be talking about it. So the question is, where did it come from?

You say a “feeling” put it there. Okay, and I say that this feeling means nothing and I offer my arguments (see above).



Meembo

I loved that. Will defiantly read some Kierkegaard tonight. Its really to bad that he coped out by throwing god in there. Much like Descartes did. One really has to wonder whether those are his actual thoughts or weather the strict social standard set by the Church forced him to add god in there.

Kierkegaard really seems like a skeptic with lines like: “What characterizes a leap of faith is the absolute uncertainty that underlies it”. Then decided to bring forth god, who is characterized as a certainty. Which seems to be a contradiction to everything he said before as the concept of god is just as uncertain as anything else. But of course I am judging a book by its cover.

Christians that accuse others of being "insane and delusional" for simply not seeing on the same plane as them spiritualy are contradicting many of the beliefs and creeds that Chirstianity embraces. Faith is a blend of that which cannot be explained and that which can.

I read through this a couple of days ago, and declined to add my opinion (especially since its very hard to express my 'proof' of God's existence,) but the more I think about it -- what makes you think that God doesn't exist?

We live in an amazing place. Even disregarding the universe or even the planet and looking at the human body. We have come so far (from living in caves and throwing our feces at one another) to a structured and somewhat 'free' society. Also we have been given the gift of conceptual thought - we as a people have the ability to experience beauty, love, hate, envy, wonderment. Where do those things come from if not from your spirit? Don't you feel and underlying connection with every human being that you meet on the street, not to mention the special connections that we experience in family, friends and lovers?

I'm not saying that this constitutes irrefutable proof of the existence of God, but doesn't it beg the reasoning that something greater than ourselves exists somewhere, holding this rolling ball of rock together? I guess that I just refuse to accept that life was created by a great chain of wonderful coincidence.

just a thought. . .

it is so. There is proof of gods existence all around us. Give me any reason you can concieve that god doesn't exist, and i will give you a much better reason why he does. Not because i'm smarter than you, but because my argument has infinite amounts of examples.

Something funny from a discussion at the coffee house:

If I tell a group of christians that I had a personal conversation with christ, I am applauded.

If I tell a group of christians (or most anyone else for that matter) that I had a personal conversation with Umbeke my wolf-like spirit guide, I am obviously deemed crazy.

;)

-SF

Which part of Faith can be explained ?

I'm serious, I would really like to know.

As the one who started this thread, I must say that it most certainly hasn't gone where I intended it to. For instance, I never meant it to be a debate on whether He exists or not.

Once again, the question I am asking is why so many christians don't understand my skepticism. Religion is about faith, not proof, so how can they not understand that I'm unconvinced just because they told me so?

Carl Sagan said it well when he wrote about the the dragon in his garage, which Astrocloud posted earlier. Thank you, it was very good!

Please name some.

I am an Atheist not because there is an abundant ammount of reasons for God not to exist, but because I see no reasons to believe that God does exist, or no proof of God's existence at all.

The thing wrong with the world these days, is that people just can't seem to fathom the accepting of others ideas. Just let people believe what they want, once a person is set on an idea it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pry them from that idea. It's the fault of the fundamentalists I tell you. ::sigh::

You're probably right on this account. I would probably be much more tollerant towards religious beliefs if it were not for the damage that they have inflicted upon the world by extremists.

I'm not saying it would in any way change my beliefs, but perhaps I wouldn't despise religion to the extend that I do.

And anyone who makes the claim that religion has not caused damage to this world really needs to open his/her eyes.

how is this "correcting" itself? it's not. religions may evolve, but they don't correct themselves, they can't. since there is no proof one way or the other about god, if a religion modifies it's beleifs, it's actually becoming another religion. if christianity right now said, "well, turns out we were wrong about john chapter 3 verse 16, we translated it wrong" that would be correcting itself. saying that there is one god, and no animal spirit ancestors is just a change in belief structure.

/i'm not sure if this actually adds anything to the thread. <sigh>

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....

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

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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.

you prove me not

I prove you not.

So There

:p

<*>

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?

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.

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.

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?

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".

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...

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.

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.

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!

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.