Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

As for evidence, it helps to have an historical perspective.

Go back a few hundred years and beyond, science as we now know it, was virtually non-existent. What we had instead was the great unknown. And the great unknown could only be explained supernaturally. Observation demonstrated that there was no other explanation. The great majority did not say, "We don't know why this is so," instead turning to the even more ancient explanations that have been around since long before Adam was a boy, that all had to be the handiwork of deities. No other explanation was possible.

The observers could not see micro-organisms that caused disease. They could not observe cellular functions in plants. The sky looks just like the dome (or firmament as they called it), with stars stuck onto it, like in the Ptolemaic system (as used in Genesis 1), the earth was flat, storms and earthquakes had to have supernatural origins, and anything else that seemed unnatural was also filed into either supernatural good or supernatural bad.

Move along slowly over the next few hundred years and one by one, a myriad of supernatural explanations are moved aside as science progressively explains them away. The earth is not flat. The sky is not a firmament with things stuck on it. We are not the centre of the universe. Disease is observed under microscope. Mathematics progresses and calculus is born - a new tool for seeing things that the eye can't see. With the aid of mathematics, the circumference of the earth is discovered, physics is born, giving us ways to understand force and energy, electricity and electrical forces are discovered, electron microscopes show us what molecules look like, design using calculus gives us buildings and machines only ever dreamed of by the gods.

Bit by bit, almost all of the universe is explained. For what is not explained, we have theories and mathematics. Mathematics has proven to be a reliable microscope for viewing the unviewable. Is it infallible? No. But it has proven itself a better tool for explaining much of what is provable.

If science has reduced superstition by 99%, what is left that this progress of science has not been able to uncover for us? As far as I can tell, we are unable to go beyond subatomics / QM because the mathematics for going beyond that has not been invented yet. And in related fashion, we cannot go back beyond Planck time, that microsecond after the Big Bang, for much the same reason. We have theory and experiment giving us the first cause of cellular life, and only deists wouldn't put that into the proven category, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument.

When it comes down to it, the only major thing that science has not found a visible, calculable or otherwise verifiable answer for is the cause of the Big Bang. Thus, wiping away thousands of years of superstitious explanation for just about everything you can point a finger at.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or forgetting something. I'm not trying to say that science is everything, only that a huge majority of our history had superstitious explanations for everything, and as knowledge had broken the ignorance of that superstition and has been able to find natural explanations for virtually all of it, it makes the case for any superstition all the harder to maintain.

Congratulations to you and one or two others for having a go at the logic behind the existence of things changeable. You won't have much luck here, though, because there is a gang of mentally impaired zealots here who fanatically avoid anything to do with a scientific method of investigation. They have arbitrarily decided that the only "truth" is that there is no uncaused First Cause and, therefore, anything that does not agree with that assumption is ipso facto false. As such, there is no logic or evidence that can penetrate their fanaticism.

Have a good, close look at the sales pitch above. It is nothing but a collection of grandiose, glib, gratuitous assertions that would do any slick snake oil salesman proud.

Talking about superstition... it means "any unreasonable belief"; and the main tenet of their materialistic religion is that everything that exists causes itself to exist for no reason by imaginary mechanisms. Now, if that's not the most absurd of superstitions, then what the hell is?

Lay out the Red Carpet--Blow the Big Trumpets!

It's David....gracing us with his Presence once again!

haha! and the same unproved assumptions, about us and about his cosmos.
David, you needn't rewrite every post. Just copy and paste from your previous ones. It's just as effective.

Well.. there is one other thing...

The human mind.

Science doesn't nearly have that covered yet.

And science never will...

As humans are ruled by emotions and emotional human beings are not repeatable experiments, with control groups, and all of that.

Dreams are part of the Quantum mind and so is imagination and creativity.

Humans have the power to change their reality with their minds..

AKA Attitude and or Relative Free Will when Attitude becomes emotionally and sensory regulated and integrated reality.

Eastern philosophies understand this for thousands of years.

Science can nuance it but again each human mind in totality is a unique non-repeatable experiment of 'each' Universe perceived as such.

The scientific method will not work to measure that.

But even emotional and sensory regulation and integration is an art of science, generally speaking, and or systemization; however, systemization with few to no words necessary, as humans can think with their emotions and senses too.

This is well beyond the capability of science to wrap 'its' mind around, per the scientific method.

But again there is the systemizing artistic mind in sensations and emotions that flows rather than doing 'MATH'.

The human heart is the stuff of 'poetry' in abstract constructs of emotional language to measure the size of it...

Science is good at the stuff outside of the human mind, if one really thinks that is THAT important.

I FOR ONE, do not, as long as I can get a shelter, food, SOME FOLKS, and a dance and a song.

My body and voice along with the bodies and voices of other folks, can fill in for the rest with minds directing THAT..

While science stands by and 'says' 'WTF'.

[quote="Andrejake"]


To me, God works through logic. This mean that He can create everything that is logically possible.
So He can creates the World, Galaxy, Atoms, animals, me... But can God create something that is logically impossible? No
Can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it? NO
Can God create a square circle? NO
Can God create a one ended stick? NO
Do you understand what I mean?
/quote]

So in other words god is the same as the natural world. All you are doing is taking the laws of nature and adding a superfluous value. Eg f=ma becomes f+g=(ma)gor e=mc2 becomes e+g=(mc2)g (i am useless at math so forgive mf if my equations are correcly expressed)The only thing in your comcept that differs from the natural laws is direction and purpose, neither of which has any empirical evidence.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 12 Feb 2015, 3:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Just as ineffective.

An assessment or judgement of someone's lack of reason or integrity is not the same as hard-selling some superstitious ideology with nonscience assumptions.

I suppose that would make sense to anyone without capacity for observation or reason.

Righto, Arty, you've convinced me. Intellect, will and power are entirely unnecessary for the creation of order and potential. To that end the wife and I have decided to consign the little intellect, will and power that we have between us to the rubbish and let the Great Nothing do its thing without any interference from us.

Like I said before; someone with my personality disorders comes with a swag of political uncorrectness... I do not suffer fools (or charlatans) gladly. You guys are not even amusingly or cleverly silly; unlike the Goon show (and Monty Python) which are amusing and clever and silly.

Except that I can prove your assumptions wrong. You have made many wrong assumptions about what I believe - first cause being just one of them. Here's a few more:















So what lacks integrity are your accusations. Each of the above is an untrue assumption. And while you insist on seeing me incorrectly, that will colour your every response to me. Very subjective and badly prejudiced. If you decide to ask me what I think and feel, then maybe you'll show some integrity. Until then, all you're doing is painting me falsely and have refused to back away from that. How can someone who claims to love science hold onto such a prejudiced view? No integrity there

And tonight ladies and gentlemen for your amusement and bewilderment, I present David, The Walking Talking Logical Fallacy.

Well... Yes and no, I think.
What I meant by that is that although God is considered an all powerful being (for those who believe) his power exists within an extent of "what is possible to do". I just used this approach as an example of one of the evidences that makes me see how God's existence is possible and makes sense.
I do not see Him as this weird old men who sits in a big throne in the sky and is there full of rage and pride ready to punish everyone who do not believe in Him. And if there is something that I agree with almost all of the atheists is that Christianism itself is the major cause of this image. As the years go by the image of God is more and more distorted by churches (or enterprises in most cases ) who likes to takes advantage of peoples faith, fear and blindness to mold Christianism as they want. But, as I stated before, the bad actions that people do is not a reason to do not believe in God. If someone drinks alcohol, drive and make a car accident I will not blame the alcohol I will blame the person.

Also I do not completely disbelief in science. Science studies how our natural world works and it understands it right! The difference is that, for me, it's not an unguided process that happened just because it could happens.
Scientists discover that the universe is expanding, so ok. By that they can logically assume that if it's expanding it probably was "compressed" before, ok. So if it was compressed before, at sometime it started to expand (or it exploded, aka Big Bang), ok. For me, this was exactly what happened! But it wasn't caused by a series of coincidences and physics laws that created themselves, but the consequence of a superior powerful entity that said "Let there be light". Then PUFF, Big Bang, Explosions, Expansion, Evolution... Everything happened but as fast as it could considering what the power of a God could do.

Something that I don't understand is why a lot of people assumes that there are only two reasons for someone to believe in God:
- Fear of going to hell
- A way to answer all of his unanswered questions
Why can't someone believe in God because it makes sense to him? Almost all the times that I join discussions about this subject I get answers like if I was a cave man who's mind is not opened enough to see the truth and this is so annoying.
I've seen atheists who defends theories about the universe with more pride and vigor THAN THE OWN CREATORS OF THOSE THEORIES! So many great minds of the scientific world assume that their theories as exactly this, theories, and still there are people who assume then as an ultimate truth and treat everyone who do not see the world the same way as them as close minded blind cave men and by acting like this they are as blind minded as those christians they criticise so much.
I at least accept that even God is a theory and through all of my posts I try my best to make this clear (I speak as if it exists, of course, because that's what I believe) but I do not completely discard the possibility of being wrong. I also agree that Christians A LOT of times do this exactly same thing (this topics is an example) and, believe me, it annoys me as much as it annoys any of you. I've met christians who I could barely talk because I knew that they have this judgmental vision that only sees God as someone who is ready to punish everyone who does not live the way THEY believe that is the right way to live, and this is something that I dislike too.

^ Wow a sensible answer from a person of faith, you and Kraichgauer should get along well.

No I do not think you are some form of cave man or lower intellect than I, far from it. The only difference between us is you think you have found the answer to causation and I am happy to say "I don't know". I am also happy to theorize that the existence of god is highly improbable.

I would say that I am bang on the money regards your belief, you see the laws of nature and agree with the science that describes them, but you then give nature purpose and direction which necessitates a sentient being to guide them, but you still restrict gods power within those natural laws. For me the laws of nature will eventually explain causation and as there is no evidence of design or direction I see no need to add god to the equation.

To my mind the way you and Kraichgauer think in comparison to me is a little like special relativity and causation. In special relativity causation can be changed provided the observers are so far apart that there is no way they can interact to exchange the information, eg one observer might see an event before it has happened relative to another observer. In the same way our differing views effect nothing on this earth, at least not yet. Therefore we should be able to live in peaceful co-existence.

My issue comes with those who would lie and fabricate knowledge and abuse young minds by indoctrinating them with pseudo science, who would deny my right to live because I do not share their faith, or who demand laws are based upon their religious beliefs eg Abortion, Homosexuality ect

Belief (in "god") is determined by what criteria the individual uses to decide if something is true or not above and beyond broadly speaking the 'obvious'; there are no arguments or debates over whether or not the sky is blue, fire burns or ice feels cold, for example.

Imagine 2 people eating a curry. One has a couple of mouthfuls and starts coughing, drinking water and sweating, saying "this is too spicy!" The other happily munches away and says "it's not really, I actually think it's quite mild". The spiciness of the curry is not a black and white fact; it's subjective; no matter how much evidence the second person produces to display that the curry is not as spicy as person 1 is indicating. Person 2 could produce lists of the spiciness grades of food, including that scale they use (I forget its name), they could give anecdotal evidence of when they ate a curry that had a warning label saying "extreme spiciness" without discomfort, and it wouldn't make a difference to person 1's personal experience and no matter how much person 1 is clearly in physical pain and describes a terrible burning sensation in his mouth, throat and insides, it remains down to the individual to decide and state how spicy the curry is.

Yes, there are widely accepted opinions and guidelines as to how hot curries are, as there are widely accepted theories and faiths about deities or lack of them, but just because person 2 can eat the whole plate without breaking a sweat, it doesn't mean that person 1, or 3, 4 or 5 etc etc can as well.

Some believe out of fear, some (many) believe because they were brought up in a religious environment and were indoctrinated from a very early age, some find faith in dark times of their life among countless other reasons they chose to believe; including "I just believe because it makes sense to me" and indeed "I choose to believe because I like it". None are any less valid or old any less value to the individual, but to others may appear very strong, or very weak reasons.

Personally, I choose not believe because I have never been presented with a reason that convinces me sufficiently that meets the criteria I would use to determine what may or may not be true - coming back to the question posed as the subject of this thread, because I feel the answer to that is "no".

This was nice to read and I completely agree with this:

If you don't mind, what does the expression "I would say that I am bang on the money regards your belief" mean? I'm not sure if I understood it right.



I agree about this too, and this is also valid to atheists where not all of them disbelieve because the lack of evidences (scientifically speaking).
About the curry metaphor you are also right, and what would be between the two cases (talking about believe in God now) would be simply faith.

Last edited by Andrejake on 12 Feb 2015, 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

When you're "bang on the money" about something, it means you are "right on target"--meaning that you have a perfect understanding of something.