Can you prove that God exists?

Let's say I can produce God. I bring him/her/heesh into your parlor
showing ID confirming that you have met the one and only GOD.
What would that do for you? If God has already created the universe
that surrounds you and you are pretty much in control of your life
at thisa point how would it even help. Perhaps it would be interesting.
And of course God could then confirm if YOU will continue to exsist
after you are dead here which is the real question isn't it? God can
be God forever but if we blink out of exsistence at some point, what
does it matter?
So, personally, I'd like directions to the afterlife. I'll visit with God when
I get there.

 

An excellent description of the fundemental "laws" that govern the universe!

 

The fact remains that we cannot touch God. We cannot define God in any way because that simply limits the infinite. If there is no beginning or end, no side, and thus no middle -- in the sense that there are no two finite points with which to define God and then define a third point in between -- and if this God does not, as you say, rely in any way on anything else, then how on earth do we find proof of said God?

We can say existence is proof of God, but in reality all we can ascertain is that either everything has always been, or that something in some way caused everything to be.

For something that is without form, what can we touch? Even 1 + 1 = 2 can be represented in form.

This is why this question becomes so difficult. Any definition of God that provides an adequate subject of debate is too defined.

So I'm not not saying there is a God or there isn't. But the search for concrete evidence of something that cannot be represented spatially is silly. The most complicated mathematical concept can still be represented with symbols based off of other concepts represented by symbols. Defining God limits God. The word He is just a concession to convenience. Dealing with God, say what God is not instead of what God is, although even that logic can get out of hand. Inevitably one must admit that there is no physical evidence of God.

Ben

 

i have known god
to be quite
small
and simple minded
with just
enough
power
to move the wind
around a bit

so when the wind
blows your mind
you can
make a new dream

of some feathers
and feathers between
yo toes
go
go on

 

I don't think you can prove or disprove God for certain.

I believe in God for many reasons, perhaps the most scientific being the coincidence of the sun and the moon appearing exactly the same size from Earth. If God was going to show us a sign of his existence, putting it up in the sky where everyone can see it is probably the best place.

 

No one has ever defined god clearly enough for a prove/disprove situation.

 

We don't know all of existence . For that matter , it's common enough
to deny something of what we do know , committing it to that black hole of the
sub-concious . My truth is the symbolic model of existence , and if i put anything down the hole , i might vaguely feel that part of existence yet my
truth isn't fully enabled .

Assume 'if God' , then all have experienced God .
or
'if no God' , then no one has experienced God .

Do you possess a complete , open , engaged conciousness ?
And have experienced no God ? Seen no feetprints in the sky?

 

I have a definition:

An almighty intelligent being that designed and created our universe. The highest authority of everything that is, with ultimate (if not infinite) power, knowledge and wisdom.

We humans obvioulsy cannot 'imagine' God since our minds are limited to the confines of our own universe (three dimensions, time etc.) and could not comprehend anything beyond it. Therefore, this kind of definition is all we could ever have. We cannot imagine God any better than a calculator could imagine us.

 

Your definition of god is a Super man. It explains nothing.

What is your definition of intelligence? A man, a horse or a dog is intelligent. Or are they? Might not behaviour be controled by factors so complex as to push the border of Chaos Theory for explanation and only appear to us as "intelligence" and "freewill" when in fact they are instictive products of genetics/evironment? They're are many indications that this may be so.

And what does "almighty" mean? Universal gravitation is "almighty", if you mean omnipotent and omnipresent. But that's about it.

Is there ONE consistency in ANY definition of god that can be tested?

 

I dont look at god as being some being in the sky who controls everything and the devil as a being who lives in the ground in fire and what not. to me GOD is exactly what it says. Good Orderly Direction. i believe there are two types of energys. one being positive and full of light and love, the other as being negitive and full of hate and wrong. grab onto the right energies and spread those energies and im sure you will end up where ever it is you wanna be. lovin ya'll.


~shine on in love and light~
Sundance

 

God is obviously not a man. He is a being quite unlike us.

Something capable of thought, and emotion.

Didn't quite understand your question, and I know very little about chaos theory. Don't get me started on the free will argument again! We do not have the same kind of intelligence as God (as I said before, humans to God are like calculators to humans). It could be said that we have a lot less intelligence than God, but the point is that God has at least as much intelligence as us, and therefore, by human standards, he is intelligent (as opposed to a calculator, which is not).

By almighty I meant omnipotent. He can do anything he wants. If the universe is a book, then God is the author. I don't think God is omnipresent, since that implies he exists at points in space inside our universe, which is a ludicrous notion. He created our universe — he is not a part of it.

You can't test to see if the universe was externally created. That is impossible. Just like you cannot prove how an author set about writing a work of fiction just by reading the fiction itself.

 

["Impossible?" The cry of the uneducated! You disappoint me, Dizzyman.
I seem to be the only one trying. Note I'll not toleratre unqualified reputiations of the possibility of god.
We cannot say what god is- let's say what he isn't.
But that's another] thread!

 

Just because something is a process that can be attributed to genetics and environement does not mean it is not intelligent. I would define intelligence very loosely as the ability to receive input from a variety of sources, categorize that input and act upon it. In that definition trees are intelligent. Do they think like you or me? No... but they do adapt the their environments in amazing ways. Lifefroms all over this planet adapt and change in 'miraculous' ways all the time and many do not have the complex nervous systems capable of intelligence. Where then does this 'knowledge' come from?

I like to think of wasps as an interesting example. Wasps live only one season. They build complex, celled paper nests where they deposit eggs and enough food to bring the offspring thorugh the pupal stage. When the new wasps emerge in the spring they have had no training whatsoever, yet they instinctively know what food to pursue. When they find a catepillar they know exactly how to sting it between each pair of legs to disable it and carry it away. Where does this 'instinct' come from?

Evolution itself also seems to follow pretty directed paths that from a distance look intelligent. You mention chaos theory Gecko, but life's evolution from the simplest of forms to the complex systems of modern creatures is anything but chaotic. Of all the arguments for some 'Other' force I personally think this one is the most convincing.

Instead of an intelligent force directing all of the affairs of life I tend to think that life is based on an intelligent system. That there is an intelligent framework of creation upon which all systems exist. That life itself is built upon this system - not a creation of it or separate thing at all. Life is just the physical manifestation of an energy force which permeates the universe entirely. Life is like the tiny mushroom on the surface of a fungal matrix which may extend for more than a mile out of sight.

 

I can give u scripture after scripture that God does exist,,,,, but u have to be willing to search the word of god as well.

 

Gecko,
Did I say 'impossible'? Okay, I should just clear that up. Of course, it is not theoretically impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that God exists. If an abundance of evidence turned up that strongly suggested that God created the universe, then scientists could declare God real and take an early night.

My 'impossible' comment was more about disproving God. Let's look at a word:

Evob.

Now, did I just type that by stroking random keys, or did I specifically set out to write the word 'Evob' because it means something to me?

By studying the word Evob for a long time, it may be possible to tell if I wrote it deliberately. But if there is no evidence to suggest any meaning behind it, that doesn't mean you can ever prove that the word was random. How could you ever know for sure?

It is impossible for anyone in our universe to disprove God. I stand by that assertion, and I am an intelligent person!

Pop,
Some interesting points.

As for you "where does instinct come from?" question, instict is just qualities passed down from generation to generation. If America became infested with killed rabbits that looked cute but killed you, the only people who survived would be the people who had strange phobias of rabbits, and their genes would be passed onto their children, so their children would instinctively fear rabbits. Instinct and evolution are pretty much the same thing, only instinct refers to psychological traits passed down.

 

ericf:

"The question [Prove God does not exist (which is not even a question, as ericf seems to believe)] is not equal when turned around... it is not even logically valid."

Yes, the burden of proof can be shifted to the unbeliever. If you are unconviced by all proofs of God's existence, then you cannot conclude that God does not exist. You must make a convincing argument proving that He does not exist or else no conclusion, one way or the other, can be drawn. That is good logic. You should also not use terms of which you do not know the meaning, such as "logically valid." In a philosophical context, you used the term completely inappropriately.

gecko:

"'Impossible?' The cry of the uneducated!"

Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty. It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible. I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience). I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence. This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being. We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought. Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God. I find this to be the most convincing argument for God's existence.

However, doubtless, many, I dare say the majority (not that I care much for them), will be unconvcinced by this argument. I then offer two additional proofs: 1) the cosmological argument, which I have been fond of since I began to study philosophy, and 2) the teleological argument, which has persistently grown on me in recent years. If the combined weight of these three arguments fail to convince an unbeliever, then I say that this person cannot be convinced; but I also must urge this person, in the name of philosophical consistency, to deny his own existence as well.

 

Dizzyman,

No doubt you are correct. However, I shan't give-up trying.

And I go eithier way. Evidence for the existence of god would make me estatic.

But that's not going to happen until someone can find a good definition of "God".

"self-aware" is the best I've got so far.

Popthree13,

I have to disagree. Evolution is as chaotic an event as can be pointed at. There are trillions of randomly generated failures for every success. Everything possible is tried with a statistically insignificant amount of success.

And part of "intelligent" (working definition) must "sel-aware". A "Hive Intelligence" may be possible, but I would suggest that such a thing is so alien to human intelligence as to rate a lable of it's own.

 

TheHammerSpeaks,

"Quite the contrary. Rather, "Impossible!" is the battle cry of those who possess the education and intellectual self-restraint to realise that nothing can be known with certainty."

I disagree. The properties of Uncertainty Itself may be understoood.

"It is only one step further to realise that, paradoxically, the impossibility of knowledge makes all things possible."

All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules.

"I cannot prove with absolutely certainty that you exist (by existence, in this case, I mean in an objective world outside of my own subjective experience)."

I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate.

"I could even go to the lengths of Humean skepticism and show that there is no concrete evidence of my existence."

No, you can't. But that's another thread.

"This is why one must presuppose existence if one wants to conclusively know anything about a being."

Besides obtuse, what is this statement?

"We use these leaps of faith in our everyday thinking without giving them a second thought."

Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith".

"Yet, for some reason which I find to be most inexplicable, some people have a very hard time making the leap to God."

I find it quite explicable. As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science.

It's Faith, no evidence needed. This I understand.
It's the no evidence wanted attitude that is beyond me. And it's antithesis- pretending to evidence that is not.

You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask "what and where is your god?" I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence.

But- what is real? Fundementals first.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force.

So I look elsewhere.

A hint among the religious, maybe?
No go, for they quickly take offense when I don't convert.

So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it.

So far, there's simply no evidence for an human-type-intelligence behind a supremebeing who functions as the Great Architect. Probability seems to be the way.

But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers.

 

Hammer, that was very well-written and very entertaining

Gecko,
I wonder: have you ever prayed? I think (and I may be wrong) that faith is more valuable to God from someone more intelligent and sceptical. God obviously appreciates all these stupid gullable people who sign up to the first religion they hear about and become fanatics, but I would imagine if a very open minded person like you (or me) opens their mind to the possibility of God existing, then it would be more rewarding to him. (Just my opinion, anyway,)

So, why not talk to him, under the hypothesis that he is real, and ask him to show himself to you. The worst that could happen is absolutely nothing.

I may be wrong, but I have this feeling you've never prayed and would never even try. I'm probably totally wrong, though. Maybe you used to be a priest and you were fed up of all the lies and packed it in years ago!

 

"All events are possible that occurr within the confines of the Rules of Reality. Other events are NOT possible. The trick is knowing the difference. And the rules."

And what Rules are these? The laws of physics, perhaps? I can easily imagine the laws of physics defied in my mind. So my questions to you are, "What makes my own subjective experience any less real than the objective world (assuming that there is one to begin with). Why should the subjective world be subordinate to the objective; what is the origin (history) of this hierarchy? Can the objective world be known with certainty?

"I can! But it's an old argument- Reasonable logic versus Pragmatic Logic. Just like the Main Debate."

Then please, by all means, take me through this argument! Take me through the reasonable/pragmatic distinction! Take me through the Main Debate!

"No, you can't [doubt the existence of the self]. But that's another thread."

I do not think that another thread will be necessary. Hume's argument is easily summarised. Presupposing empiricist epistemology, there is no sense impression of the self. Therefore, the idea of the self is one based on consistency and coherence, and does not constitute true knowledge.

"Besides obtuse, what is this statement [the necessity of presupposing existence for knowledge]?"

Besides obtuse, it is Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God. Allow me to use a more concrete example. Revisionist historians, holocaust deniers, do not presuppose the existence of the holocaust. Upon failing to presuppose its existence, one can easily arrive at their conclusions (e.g. doctored photographs, an international Zionist conspiracy, etc.). Likewise, since the existence of the holocaust is not presupposed, nothing can be known about it (because it never happened). This is really the heart of the argument.

"Again. sir, I disagree, and do not live my life on "leaps of Faith"."

Then I am impressed that you have managed to live to the age that you have, and I strongly urge you to live by such leaps out of concern for your health and well being!

By another of Hume's arguments, one cannot know with certainty that drinking arsenic will kill a man. It is only through consistency and coherence that we presuppose the existence of causality.

"As someone purported to have more wisdom than I once pointed out, among us are the believers and the seekers. The problem lies in the need of the believers to substantiate thier faith as science."

I do no such thing. I have little faith in the natural sciences.

"You claim the power of your Faith, and I ask 'what and where is your god?' I don't see him. So I look for evidence- objective evidence. REAL evidence."

If I may answer this question with another question, I would ask, "What are where is your self?" I don't see him.

"Componets of Reality influence one another in an observable manner"

I disagree with this statement, but let us presuppose it for now.

"So, by this definition is your god real?

Not quite. Religion, however, is a real force."

It appears that you are mimicing Feuerbach's argument, so I will continue in that vein. Let us presuppose that a subject can only be known through its predicates. If God is absolute subject, then He is an 'empty' subject, meaning that He is unknowable, a void. If God is an empty subject, then from where does religious experience originate? Feuerbach would answer, "From within ourselves! It is our essence! Man is God!" I would respond that if religious feeling is merely my essence, if it is a part of me, then what is this fear that overcomes me when I contemplate the divine? Why would I fear... myself?

"So some of us look in the obvious place- the Universe all around us. It may or may not be a god construct, but it's all we've got. So we work with it."

You are leaving our yourself as an object of contemplation. I find that answers come more readily through introspection, and that the universe outside of myself cannot be understood until I understand myself first.

"But some of us will countinue to seek to understand, to use the tools of curiosity and intelligence (be they god given or random occurances) that we possess to learn a little bit more of the truth of what IS.

You'll have to use your Christian forgivness when I tell you I find this the much more noble path than that taken by the believers."

And I am sure that you, atheist, will be baffled at my belief in the virtue of the absurd and irrational.