Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

I've noticed that about Dawkins. From an intellectual or philosophical assessment, Dawkins isn't highly regarded as being at the top of the game, at least not in the same class as, say, Hitchens.

The problem with Dawkins and those who pattern themselves after him is while you SAY you merely do not believe that there is a god and take more an agnostic position, you're taking a stand whether you admit it or not.

Agnosticism has to admit there may well be a god. The "does not believe" atheist is forced to waffle on that one. Is there a god or not? If there's "probably not" a god, then Dawkins doesn't have much reason to be so outspoken on the subject. But Dawkins isn't a "meh…can't prove it by me" kind of person. He's pretty adamant about his apparent "lack of belief." One must wonder why.

I don't "waffle" about my lack of faith in the existence of a sentient "Supreme Being."

I don't fully preclude the existence of said "Being." I just don't have "faith" in its existence at this point.

And how is that any different from "Skydaddy that has always existed outside of the universe, with no apparant cause or reason"?
Also, the Big Bang has always been admitted to be a theory; a (likely) possibility, supported by the facts known to us, so far; one that has recieved a competitor recently. This is the beauty of science, it changes its mind when faced with conflicting information.

Finally, and i keep mentioning this in this subforum; even if you manage to prove the current scientific consensus to be wrong, this does not prove the existence of god, or the truth of the bible, doing that is like proving that a puddle of water appeared becouse someone emptied a bucket by proving it hasn't rained in a few days.

With apologies for the multitude of responses in one post that I likely won't have time to pursue further should anyone reply. Time has become something of a premium commodity for me of late.

It's so rare to find a bigot who self-identifies as one.



That you are being quite serious is precisely why you elicit laughter.



Clearly you have a new definition for the word "fact" which you haven't explained here, but apparently means "textbook Creationist false dilemma".



You seem to have mistaken the Big Bang Theory with the fictional work of humorist Terry Pratchett. Whilst I applaud your reading choice, I must insist that you at least consider reading some scientific texts lest you make the same mistake again.



Sadly Sir Terence's clarification is no longer available to us, but I'm fairly certain that he would tell you that his metaphysical musings were not meant to be taken seriously.



Leaving aside the issue of our limited understanding of what "nothing" is, where does "God" come from?



Why do you think of Dawkins as "extreme"?



Atheism isn't a haven in which to hide from dogmatic religion, nor is it a rebellion against any specific god or anger against a creator. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in a god or gods.



There's a lot of unnecessary confusion of terms caused by people making statements such as "I'm an agnostic, not an atheist" as if the two are mutually exclusive.

Agnostic: We cannot/do not know if there are any gods.
Atheist: I do not believe there are any gods.

It perhaps gets even more confusing when you add the strong agnostic position (it is impossible to know if gods exist) and the strong atheist position (there are definitely no gods) which clearly are incompatible. It's best to consider belief/knowledge as intertwined branches of a spectrum of theistic positions.

Based purely on the writings and words of the man, Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, just like the majority of atheists.



Probably because he's a far better writer than orator, whereas Hitchens was highly accomplished at both but less knowledgeable scientifically.



I'm not sure you've identified a "problem". Dawkins makes his stance very clear, as does every atheist I've met, read or listened to.



This is another false dilemma. It is perfectly reasonable to state the following:

"I do not believe in pixies but I do not discount the possibility that they might exist."



The only honest answer any human being can give to the question posed is "I do not know". Like Dawkins, every outspoken theist from history has just as much reason to be outspoken as Dawkins. Obviously the subject is far more nuanced than answering a simple question of whether gods exist



Because you're confusing knowledge with belief. Dawkins position is essentially as follows:

Belief requires evidence.
It is possible that there is evidence that might convince me of the existence of a god or gods.
I have seen no evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods.
I do not believe in any gods.
I do not discount the possibility of the existence of a god or gods.

In other words "I admit that I cant offer a shred of evidence for anything I believe so I will just indulge in ad hominem attacks against everyone who disagrees with me by saying that 'everyone who disagrees with me indulges in ad hominem attacks like I myself am doing right now!'".

That's real cute!

Lol!

If I didn't have 100% irrefutable proof that GOD exists, my Relative Human FREE WILL, FAITH, HOPE, AND BELIEF IN GOD MIGHT NOT BE 100%, AS IS BUT IT IS.

OH AND BY HE WAY, RELATIVE HUMAN free will, faith, hope, and belief are all empowering human emotions that not all humans seek, find, employee, utilize, and practice to make real life human miracles possible, as I do almost every now of every now, and IS viewed by the 'herd' as 'such', almost everywhere I go in life.

And I will again, provide one tiny proof of that flesh and blood miracle, as a shut-in for five years with a synergy of 19 life threatening disorders, including Dysautonomia that is considered a genetic disease, where I could not raise my arms over my head without almost passing out, or walk around the block in my neighborhood doing the same.

And while folks might pooh pooh the emoting powers of the human emotions of relative free will, faith, hope, and belief, used with the REAL LIFE AFFECTING and EFFECTING POWERS of human imagination and creativity that not all humans seek, find, employ, utilize and practice either, if and when they do and cure themselves of the worst pain known to mankind noted in medical documentation as worse that CRUCIFIXION in human pain, and experience that pain from waking to sleeping for five years that is like a dentist drilling their teeth without novocaine, except it is in their eye and ear, making effective use of those sensory organs almost impossible WITH BEYOND excruciating pain, they TOO WILL BECOME A SO-CALLED BELIEVER IN THE HIGHER POWER OF GOD WHEN THEY CURE THEMSELVES THROUGH THE INNATE INTUITIVELY ACCESSED AND PRACTICED HIGHER POWER OF ALL THESE HUMAN EMPOWERING EMOTIONS, FACULTIES, AND OR ISA'S, INSTINCT SKILLS AND ABILITIES TO MAKE REAL HUMAN MIRACLES A REALITY IN THEIR LIFE.

SO YEAH, considering all of that yes, this short clip of me smoothly and slowly pressing 930LBS with my legs, 14 times, at age 54, WITH MY ARMS RAISED, and remember that used to make me pass out, in a disorder the doctors said there was NO POSSIBILITY OF RECOVERY FROM, ALONG WITH THE SYNERGY OF THE OTHER 18 MEDICAL DISORDERS I WAS DIAGNOSED WITH THAT I MYSELF CURED, WITH THE HIGHER POWER OF GOD THAT NO DOCTORS PROVIDED A CHANCE FOR RECOVERY, IN THE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION I STILL HAVE; YES, THIS IS a real life miracle.

IN FACT, the doctors no longer said there was a need to even see me, as there was nothing they could do for me, as no pain medication would even 'touch' the pain of Trigeminal Neuralgia.

And to be clear, I know one has seen this video before but I can promise one that there are folks in the reading audience that have come close to losing hope and are suicidal like I was at one time, and I do not care how arrogant one thinks one is in thinking one 'knows' everything, when honestly it's not likely one knows or FEELS much to ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRUTH OF WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT HERE, PER REAL LIFE FLESH AND BLOOD HITTING THE ROADS OF REAL LIFE STUFF.

BUT ANYTIME, someone puts a statement out there that is ignorant enough to suggest that no one knows for sure that GOD exists, has NOT likely been to real literal human hell in separation from the all encompassing FORCE OF GOD LIKE I HAVE.



PERHAPS one EXPERIENCES GOD ALL THE TIME, AND JUST Does not REALIZE THE GIFT one HAS.

IN that CASE, IF one EVER BECOMES SEPARATED FROM THE ALL ENCOMPASSING FORCE THAT IS GOD THAT CAN BE EXPERIENCED AS FORCE THAT NO LONGER EXISTS, IN SUBJECTIVE MIND, THEN one WILL FINALLY KNOW GOD SIMPLY FROM THE ABSENCE OF CONNECTION FROM GOD.

AND IF one HAS ALWAYS BEEN SEPARATED FROM GOD, TO SOME degree in the spectrum of that that does exist, perhaps there is no reference point for one, and that is simply sad, and truly no one has proven that GOD is fair, and that includes me, and when it comes to faith, hope, and belief as just wishes and not REAL EMPOWERING HUMAN EMOTIONS, I WISH THAT GOD IS FAIR BUT THAT'S CURRENTLY ABOVE MY 'PAYGRADE', AS A 'super' VOLUNTARY SOLDIER AND EMPLOYEE OF GOD TO UNDERSTAND.

IF I receive more information from GOD in the way that GOD speaks to "GOD's" children, specifically me, I'll make sure I'll let one know, as I intend to leave no one out in the cold ways of life without heart, spirit, and soul, MORE FULLY EXPERIENCED AND PRACTICED, which truly are all REAL METAPHORS FOR A HUMAN BEING EXPERIENCING THE FULLER POTENTIAL OF GOD GIFTED EMPOWERING EMOTIONS TO MAKE real life miracles COME TRUE..

In other words, until a person SEEKS, FINDS, EMPLOYS, UTILIZES AND PRACTICES THE REAL HIGHER POWER OF GOD THAT LIVES WITHIN HUMAN BEINGS AS IS, ALL INNATE, INSTINCTUAL, INTUITIVE, AS IS, life is an Oak easily blown over by a Hurricane of formidable resistance, OR in some cases forces as weak as abstract human constructed words.

'God is a Willow, and so am I.'

Until one understands THAT and lives that

NOT LIKELY one will ever REALLY know

and FEEL GOD, either.

And to be clear, GOD is no noun, alone.

GOD IS ALL VERB, ALL FORCE, ALL ENERGY

AND AT CORE OF ALL EXISTENCE AS IS.

GOD IS UNIVERSAL.

GOD IS UNIVERSE.

GOD IS ENERGY.

GOD IS FORCE.

GOD IS.

GOD IS NO THREE

LETTER WORD OF

NOUN, ALONE,

ever, Ever, EVER.

GOD IS NOW.

NOW IS GOD.

GOD IS

IS GOD

IS

IS

AND THAT MY friend is logical PROOF FOR GOD,

IN HUMAN LIMITED WORDS TO HOUSE SOMETHING

SO SMALL AND SO LARGE

ALL

AT

THE

SAME

TIME

NOW,

WHERE TRULY TIME IS THE ILLUSION

AND THE NOW THAT IS ALL

IS

GOD.

Any questions...

It's not complicated friend,

as long as one understands the

definition of IS
AS
GOD.

OTHERWISE, one is just lost in the past or future that
NEVER EXISTS.

TRULY SAD that so-called Atheists, Agnostics, AND

many, IF NOT ALL so-called Abrahamic religious

folks are all in the same POD OF IGNORANCE OF IS

JUST IS

IS JUSTICE

and OH GOD AMUSING

@ALL THE SO-CALLED TIME

PEOPLE SPEND NEVER BEING IS@ALL.

AND YES, IT IS ALL

SAD TOO, IN PART, WITHOUT

IS, WHETHER THAT

SADNESS IS FELT

OR
NOT, AS ONLY METAPHOR


INSTEAD, WITH NO
REAL FEELING TO
ACCOMPANY IT
OF WHAT IS
CAN BE
FOR
HUMAN BEING
MORE FULLY EXPERIENCED
IN HUMAN POTENTIAL AS IS.

I don't even think Dawkins is a great writer. Don't get me wrong…I think Dawkins is brilliant in his field. That field just doesn't happen to be philosophy or theology (or literature, for that matter).


That's what I mean. Would Dawkins say there is or isn't a God? If anyone says "probably not God," he's also saying "probably God" in the same breath. The language Dawkins uses is to the effect of "probably not, and you really shouldn't believe." Why does Dawkins care what anyone else believes? That's what I take from it, anyway.


So are there pixies or not? It's not a false dilemma at all. Is there something wrong with me if I choose to believe pixies exist?


True.


Whether it's knowledge or belief shouldn't really matter, though. Why does Dawkins bother with beliefs that others hold?

The thing is, Dawkins has outright said that believers are delusional. If you're going to look at it empirically and objectively, you have to acknowledge the sheer numbers of people who believe in SOMETHING beyond the material world. I'm not saying the majority of people can't possibly be wrong. But I am pointing out that despite an increasingly materialist, intellectual, technologically advanced world, faith continues to persist. Is it possible that people who identify at least as "spiritual" might be the norm for a reason and it's anti-theists that are deluded? I'm not interested in an ongoing debate about it, btw, but it's illustrative of the fact that Dawkins isn't JUST an agnostic atheist. He's outright hostile. Why does it matter so much?

And thanks, particularly, to the hardest 'A**' Atheists, around here, at this point in now, as I do know this site, in particular, will hold the hardest 'A**' Atheists here to test me, and as a direct result of that challenge and all the other challenges here, I have been able to construct both a definition and description of the higher power of force of GOD in human beings that most people with any common sense, will find hard to refute.

So, here is the link,

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/03/20/signatures-preseeding-sons-and-daughters/

and associated THEME SONG, AGAIN.



YES, THAT'S BEEN MY PROJECT HERE, AS CHALLENGE TO MY FAITH,
AS IS,
THAT NO ONE HAS COME CLOSE TO BUDGING@ALL.

HOWEVER, plenty of what I describe, as dark energy, to motivate the
greaTEST ENERGY OF GOD WITHIN ME, AS LIGHT AND TRUTH
MANIFEST ALL AROUND ME,
AS
OF
YET.

So, Thanks, AGAIN!

Sincerely, Love ya'll; no matter what, ya'll do,

as all other challenges in life, it has only made me incredibly
and irrefutably as strong in both spirit and physical strength as
A real life 'SUPERSTAR' OR 'SUPERMAN', or whatever one wants to
describe as human potential more fully manifest in human form(S).

What if I said I had pink unicorns dancing in my backyard?

What if I said I knew there was an exquisite t.pot orbiting the earth...........

It is the place of the believer, the person who makes the claim, to show evidence. I cannot state you do not have pink unicorns in your garden, but I can say that I demand reasonable evidence supporting the claim before I will accept that your assertions are probable.

Why would you demand evidence? You don't think I have pink unicorns in my backyard?

I actually found the evidence, assuming the back yard in the link is yours.

http://www.dogwork.com/punbyk8

Now...if only the pink unicorns had some bucks (money) just for you!

The last point is one he does not (at least vocally) support. I think he is a little extreme in his insistence to denigrate the concept of god for the purpose of creating a public spectacle. I prefer the concepts of god given by Neil De Grasse Tysone or even Stephen Hawkins which are less confrontational (more low key) but say the same thing.

I shouldn't have to explain, the differences being, so far as I am concerned, rather clear for all to see. The 'invisible sky-daddy' concept is extremely anthropomorphic, occupies physical space, is subject to the laws of nature (because this 'god' exists within the physical realm), and, if it indeed existed, would be a rather easy 'god' to discover by science.
What I had in mind when I typed what I did before, is nothing at all like this in any way. The, for lack of a better term, 'God' that I am willing to accept is not in any way an aspect of the physical reality that we ourselves reside in. For an analogy, think of the author of a story who creates characters that populate the world that he/she has created. Is the author him/herself a member of the set of characters that appear within the book? Obviously not, for the author transcends the world he/she has created, created for reasons we do not understand, being among the cast that appear within the story that is being told. Perhaps at the end of it we will all find out (or maybe we won't, I don't know for sure).

Yes, I understand the 'Big Bang' is merely the best solution currently have to (scientifically) account for why there is what there is. No doubt it will be modified later on, or perhaps even ditched altogether, but however you look at it the physical universe no doubt had a 'beginning' (evidence: ever-increasing entropy, Olber's Paradox, impossibility of ever crossing an actual infinity of moments in time), so even if we eventually abandon it, the problem of what brought about what we now have will remain. The universe is not eternal in time, because it can't be. The Steady State theory, that so many atheists like Fred Hoyle were so fond of, has bit the dust.

I did not mention the Bible, so why do you even bring it up? The Bible, so far as the question of God's existence goes, is completely irrelevant. There is no 'scientific consensus' regarding the existence/non-existence of God, even though many like Lawrence Krauss would have us believe otherwise, with their stubborn insistence that there cannot possibly be one because 'science' has (somehow) proven the idea to be positively infantile.