Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Ordinary logic demands an uncaused First Cause.

Quantum Mechanics is only a possible explanation as to why electrons etc. do not behave according to Newtonian macro-physics. QM is not the "magic bullet" that justifies all narcissism.

Ordinary logic is toxic to ordinary narcissists.

Why?

That's just one small chapter of the QM book. Sounds like you need to go back to school, David.

I love the image of errant socks popping up elsewhere as a portal opens.

But in all seriousness, try running your hand along the top of the dryer drum, the part that isn't visible when you look in the dryer. Static electricity often sticks the socks firmly to the drum and they have to be manually peeled off. After learnng this I have now made it a habit to always run my hand along the dryer drum.

I also discovered that the socks can be peeled loose and reapplied to bedsheets. I once made my bed with freshly laundered sheets and it wasn't until I removed the sheets again for another wash that I saw a sock on the mattress.

That's my position exactly.

My transition to functional atheism (love the term) was shorter than yours possibly because I was raised Jewish. For some cultural reason I can't quite put my finger on (maybe because it's also a cultural identity?????) it seems easier for Jewish people to arrive at atheism or agnosticism. In my personal experience (people I've talked to over the years) it seems like Christian and Muslim people who pull away from their birth religion are more likely to do so because they disagree with the structure and leadership of the religion and they become Deists or switch religions (Unitarian Universalist being a big one to go to). This is from my experience of various social circles over my life and can't be generalized globally. It might just be the people I gravitate to.

When I try to explain my position, as you have done, they say "so you're Agnostic?". But that isn't quite it either. It isn't that I am undecided or think it's impossible to know if there is a God. It's that I think the terms "God" and even "Creator" or "Prime Mover" are so necessarily anthropomorphized as to be wrong. We have a human frame of reference and can't help but apply human concepts such as "intelligent", "conscious", "being". Whatever is out there is so outside our frame of reference that anthropomorphizing is inevitable unless we stick to what we can discover through naturalistic means. Even saying something like "God is life" or "God is inside us" is still anthropomorphizing.

Functional atheism is an attempt to get away from the mental trap of anthropomorphizing. It is unlikely that the total truth of "out there" can even fit inside our brains. When we say "God" or "Prime Mover" we have chopped whatever it is down to a size that fits inside our brains and I refuse to do that.

I agree, and perhaps it's as you say, re cultural identity. And yes, a few Christians I've known have gone to some other religion, or mysticism.


Agnostic to me is passive, inert, undecided. Something like that. I can't quite pin it down, but agnostic doesn't work for me either.


Exactly! Cheers

Agnostic simply means "can't know". One of those absurdities egomaniacs use to "legitimise" irrationality.

"The only thing that you can know is that you can't know."

I'm not an agnostic but am still curious what you find egomaniacal or irrational about that stance.

Let us suppose there is such a thing as God that will hold us accountable for how we live. If we were allowed to know about it, all our actions would be motivated by known consequences of everything we do and there would be no room for freedom to be our real selves. Have you ever watched how people operate their cars on the highway, most of them speeding and tailgating people who are traveling the full speed limit and cutting aggressively in and out of traffic? But as soon as they see a police car they change and put their best foot forward because everything they do is motivated by adventitious incentives. If we could know a God existed and was watching us, the worst psychopaths would behave like saints. Nobody would dare manufacture and market tobacco or junk food. No sports star would accept a seven or eight figure salary. But most would behave themselves for the wrong reason, a knowledge of what is in it for them.
That leaves us with two possibilities, no such thing as God, or a world rigged to make it impossible to know.

I am a Christian, so I feel that God exists, but that he isn't the proverbial "white-bearded stranger" that people expect (this was probably a personification that began with later civilizations). No visual depiction of God is described in the Bible/Torah/Quran, so it is subject to speculation.

Rather, my view is that God is more of a powerful wave of energy that permeates one's mind, body, and spirit, and motivates us to do certain things and have certain feelings.

God is anthropomorphized in Genesis, as he comes walking in the cool of the day, looking for Adam. The Elohist writer (who wrote Genesis 1), used an empirical style, but the Yahwist writer (who wrote Gen 2 & 3) uses anthropomorphism as a literary mode.

There are other stories where God is portrayed as discussing things, like his discussions with the devil over Job.

I used to be Christian too, but I had to reconcile all such ideas, and after decades of trying, I decided you have 3 choices: cherry pick, accept it all, or toss the lot. Cherry picking works as a stop gap, but then it grows like a cancer.

God as a philosophical concept is all right with me.

As far as God as an actual god.....forget about it. I'm atheist all the way.

Like I've said many times, it's all a matter of "faith." Arguments about whether God, gods, spirits, goblins, etc exist are always a dead end because both sides have "faith" that their opinion is the one and only opinion. There is no proof that a Supreme Being or being exist. There's no proof that they don't exist, either.

To me, it's all an article of "faith."

Article?
Oh come now.. is that like an article of clothing?
hmmm.. probably more like an article, like an editorial, or a full blown thesis.
Thesis?
Oh come now.. is that like a theology?
hmmm.. probably more like "this is" but a misspelled aphorism.
Aphorism?
Oh come now.. is that like a for-ism or a-gainst-ism?
hmmm.. now I'm lost.

I just think it's useless to argue religion--but it's useful to discuss religion.

Belief in Supreme Beings is "faith-based." So is non-belief.

That's what I feel.

I understand the damage done in the name of religion; but I also understand the damage done in the name of non-religion.

I feel the same way about the search for the "one truth."

I believe in elements of Nietzsche; but I also believe in elements of Aristotle...and of Plato.

I find agreement in everything I read. I find disagreement in everything I read. There are those which I agree MORE with; there are those in which is disagree MORE with.

It really depends on the day, frankly, what I BELIEVE in. Though I have a core set of values.

Sorry kraftie... I just saw the phrase, "article of faith" and chuckled over the term, being one we often use. Sometimes a phrase sends me off on a linguistic jaunt, playing hop-scotch with the meaning, cadence and dna.

One day I may even wax lyrical over the phrase, "wax lyrical."

Linguistic jaunts are always cool!