What would be proof that God exists?

[kellykea]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?

 

[olde drunk]

Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Ethanol]

In response to michelle

Your Definition of God is incomplete.
G- Generator
O- Operator
D- Destroyer
I like the rest of your words. Faith really has no material evidence, but that is the difference between a believer and nonbeliever. A believer won't ask where the God is and will he ever materialize in front of us. May be we certainly cannot prove the existence of God but i don't want to throw the sponge without trying.

 

[kellykea]

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

 

[olde drunk]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.
anyone share my opinion?

gee, i never realized the full implications of my comment until you introducted the similarities to sports.

you see, i don't consider us as 'pawns'. the rules we abide by, are only the agreements we have made to be physical (accepting the laws of physics, etc).

freewill allows us to break rules and enjoy the consequences, as with all games. those that are more adventurous can 'play' within the rules and continually stretch them. i enjoy bending and stretching all rules.

my original intent was that we should not take life too seriously and PLAY more. we seem to get caught up in societal input as to what is important, rather than thinking for ourselves and making ouselves happy, first.
what good is it if we satisfy whatever understanding we have of god's intent, our family's, employer, community, etc if we are not happy with what we are doing.

personally, i feel i spent the first 25-30 years addressing what i thought was important and the last 30+ years trying to correct my ideas.

IF, we are happy and love self, then we can love others and life becomes a fancyful game without any losers.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[michelle s]

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i don't agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?

I agree with that statement because it would in theory restrict god's gift of free will to us humans. But your statement about god is not valid because god was not part of olde drunk's theory.

IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existence of God?

Did I give the impression that I doubt the existence of God ? Surely, I never said this in words.

But that does not mean I won't object to the so called "scientific arguments" that are really ignorant concoctions of the scientifically uneducated. Moreover, they only weaken the argument for the existence of God, so I don't see why all the believers give such people a free reign, when they are really doing a disservice to the faith.

Finally, I must admit that I do doubt the existence of God. This is not to say that I'm convinced of His non-existence...but until something happens to change my opinion one way or the other, I will remain open.

Okay, now I've said it in words, but not before now.

 

[Gokul43201]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

 

[marcus]

michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul

Yes, Michele said

"Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity"


If one has a deep reverence for nature and the physical universe then I suppose that the Christian and Mohammedan idea of Jehovah or whatever it is may seem somehow disrespectful, frivolous, even in a certain way blasphemous, I guess.
I am getting a bit discouraged by all this Fundamental religiosity among Bible-thumping Christian and Koran-thumping Muslim.
I wish people could just try to respect and honor the world without thinking they must tell each other exactly who should get the credit for making it.

 

[michelle s]

In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity".

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

 

[marcus]

I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...

dont feel bad, no problemo
I did not mean any severe criticism! I make all kinds of
grammar and spelling mistakes myself, constantly and without regret,
but also do not mind being corrected

Maybe we just need to make little perfunctory efforts at correct English
now and then to remind ourselves that it does have rules
above and beyond sheer habit, or so I sometimes think.

BTW michelle, I just came here by accident and was curious about the topic of discussion

It would seem more natural to me to turn the question around and say

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

You would formulate some kind of Supernatural Being Hypothesis (it would probably need to be more definite than simply saying "God exists" but anyway some precise version of that)
and then you would derive predictions from that hypothesis, which would follow if the hypothesis is true. and then you would check to see if
these predictions are born out by observation.

 

[michelle s]

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

i agree it would be a much better way to phrase the question.

 

[Gokul43201]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

 

[omin]

A God That Makes Sense

All humans have five senses. Three are vision, sound and touch. The other two are chemical: smell and taste. Humans may only have thought one way and that is through the five senses. All thoughts represent one or more of the five senses. All senses represent something in the objective environment.

There is no thought on something that may not be sensed, unless it is a thought created by the mind that is simply a reordering of one or more of the five senses that represent empirical sense. For example, a fiction novel is a taxification only of the five senses, but is a order that represents a fantasitic order of the five senses. Another important detail is that each word summons different images and magnitudes of the images of the words of a novel, so everyone sees a similar (because of common language) but different story based upon form of the commonly sensed image and the intensity of the particular image. Just think about the possibilities of what the term God evokes across humankind. One, the personal word value of each individual, and two, the form of the theories presented over time that build the concept, oh yeah, the personal reordering has an impact too based upon the determination of their mind.

Every element of thought you have is based upon something you have experienced in the environment. It is a memory only. And again, when it represents something that doesn't exist, it's simply those memories put in another order that wasn't experienced.

God is mixture of elements you have experienced in you life. All the elements have been experienced by you. But the order is something you have not experienced.

God is a fantastic theory, but represents nothing we sense, except the elements that make up the concept.

So, when you can present to me a God that may be sensed by my five senses, instead of a God that is only known by a fantastic theory which is merely a reordering of thoughts of empirically sensed things, then I will not believe in God, I will know God.

Do you have the force to summon the master?

 

[olde drunk]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism?

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[Gokul43201]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

 

[marcus]

There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...

Gokul we must try to do better than the business with the rock.

I have constructed two divinity-hypotheses that might be testable (that is falsifiable by observation). I do not have much hope that they are testable---that either could actually serve as a basis for making predictions which could be checked. But I'll put them out to examine, just in case someone might see how to test one of them.

A. the manipulative alien with intentions

At the present time there is a powerful alien able to manipulate events in the universe so that things happen which do not follow from the laws of probability and physics. Not infrequently, things happen that we wouldn't expect simply from natural laws, and this shows the alien's intentions.

B. the non-interfering designer

An alien intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion according to plan. The alien who did this is no longer in evidence and does not intervene----indeed may no longer be around or be interested. But the creation goes on working as designed.

Probably everybody (atheist and theologian alike) would be happy if we could disprove hypotheses A and B! they do not sound very nice. If everybody dislikes them, then why shouldn't we be able to disprove them scientifically?

But to disprove them we would first need to derive predictions from them about some future observation or measurement! I do not see how to do this.

Perhaps somebody else will come up with a more predictive hypothesis of this sort

 

[Gokul43201]

My sister once came up with the theory that Jesus Christ was really an alien. Was quite interesting, I thought.

Oops, have I just blasphemed ?

And yeah, the rock thing doesn't go far...but I've really not heard a response to that from a believer, and I'm curious what they'd say !

 

[omin]

OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism?

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk

In logic, there is denotation and connotation. That's it. Denotation represents a symbol which represent something physically existing as a whole and connotation represents a part or aspect of that. Connotation may also abstract things which means multiply or divide them and form a 'idea concept' or mix and match of that aspect. God is a mix and multiply of real things sensed (connotations).

Gravity is still sensed, even if it's just a property which is understood through displacement. It exists, even if I only see a property, rather than what I believe may be something else to it, but havn't sensed. I have only sensed the elements that makes up the idea God, not the picture that the elements form. The difference is gravity is obviously a objectively sensed thing, but God is only a subjectively sensed thing formed out of objective elements. They are not equally believable or knowable. I know gravity of what I've sensed. I used to believe in God, but know science does not allow me to believe things I think over empirically.

Determination is creation said in a more accurate way. Creation assumes time travel may occur in the mind in the smallest of moments. We are who we are and we cannot change a thing. We say we make choices out of convience for language, but we really, really don't mean it. We are not really stopping the flow of physics, then deciding. The flow is stopping us and deciding for us. We don't decide the flow.

We watch ourselves unfold in this life. We watch ourselves born once. We watch ourselves exist in one place at a time the whole time we are here in human life. We watch ourselves make only one choice at a time (never two and never no choice, because Rush already convinced me that is a choice too). Then we watch ourselves die, one death, one second at at time.

If you are not the only one of you, one minute at a time, then who else are you?

There can only be one. -Highlander

 

[omin]

All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully. To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

There is probably more to this...

 

[Ethanol]

Rock?

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert. Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that going to question His authority. I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully.

How does your argument make use of Newton's Laws ? Yes, I think there are people that don't get Newton's Laws...

To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

"Touching" ? If you wish to use words with non-standard connotations, perhaps you should define them. Maybe an example would help.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

If using some consistent framework of rules amounts to 'indirectly sensing', then yes, string theories make use of indirect sense.

You speak of the existence of "pure imagination." Can you provide an example of pure imagination ?

 

[Gokul43201]

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert.

Sensible, I like to think of myself as. Powerful - no ...I'm not especially fond of being powerful.

Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that going to question His authority.

The question may seem silly and laughable...but it is for exactly this reason (that you've provided responses which do not answer the question) that I brought it up. God does not have to demonstrate this task to all the people lest they question His authority. Simply for His own amusement, can He or can He not do it ? That's different from whether He chooses to.

Let's stick to the question.

I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.

So does that mean He has not the ability to control the size of the Universe ? But if He can, you still have not aswered whether He can make the rock big enough to satisfy the second condition.

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.

 

[dschouten]

Blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?

 

[Gokul43201]

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Russell E. Rierson]

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.

Yes, but there are also problems with only having uncertainty:



Here is a quote of Richard Feynman:

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. "

Feynman also appears to be expressing a mathematical paradox, basically in the form of a statement:

We can only be certain that we are not-certain


X iff not-X

 

[nasrin]

Honestly, there can be no absolute proof. I'd be willing to accept any clear-cut evidence of a specific religion's deity, but that still couldn't prove that it was an actual god. It could, after all, be an alien.

i will give you one thing and i believe that will do it. i said i will since you said you are willing to accept any religion thing. so, here goes, islam.
just take Qur'an as prove for existence of God, one needs no others for it.

if you think it is written by someone else or so, then simply take this:
“And if ye are in doubt As to what We have revealed From time to time to Our Servant, then produce a Soorah Like thereunto; And call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, If your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot –And of a surety you cannot. hen fear the Fire Whose fuel is Men and Stones – Which is prepared for those Who reject Faith.”
[Al-Qur’aan 2:23-24]

The challenge of the Qur’aan, is to produce a single Soorah (chapter) like the Soorahs it contains. The same challenge is repeated in the Qur’aan several times. The challenge to produce a Soorah, which, in beauty, eloquence, depth and meaning is at least somewhat similar to a Qur’aanic Soorah.

this is a challenge for the human being for forever but no one until this day could do anything but failed and accepted it as the prove for the existence of God.

if you like to see more, there are many well known scientist and so on worked on it. this site is for it. www.it-is-truth.com[/URL]
if you like to visit it. okay

you said it could be after all alien. but who is that alien could be? and who is the creator of that alien?

just take that challenge and work on that you will get your answer if you are looking for it. i am happy at least that you are willing to accept anything to find the question answer. i don't like that people limit their points and limit others words to only certain fields. why don't they want to know others? aren't they human?
okay
take care.

 

[fleetze]

nasrin wrote:

if you like to see more, there are many well known scientist and so on worked on it. this site is for it. www.it-is-truth.com[/URL]
if you like to visit it. okay[/quote]


I looked into the Muslim site. Warning bells immediately go off whenever I see a scientist claiming to know the "truth".

This following passage basically sums up the crackpottery that is [PLAIN]www.it-is-truth.com[/URL]


From [PLAIN]www.it-is-truth.com:[/URL]

[quote]Therefore, when there is a conflict between the meaning of a clear, explicit verse (meaning qat'ee ad-dalaalah) of the Qur'aan and 'modern' science. a Muslim must take the verse of the Qur'aan - without hesitation - over any scientific 'fact'. A rejection of such a verse, or even the apparent meaning of such a verse, would be tantamount to a rejection of Allah's knowledge. For example, the theory of evolution is, for the most part, agreed upon by the majority of non-Muslim scholars. Whether there is strong proof to back up the theory or not is irrelevant - the Qur'aan is clear that Allah created Adam from His own Hands, and "From him He created his mate, and from these two He spread forth many men and women" (4:1)

Therefore a Muslim can never believe in the theory that men are descendants of apes, no matter what "proof" might seem to exist.2 Neither is it allowed, as some Muslim rationalists have done, to try to interpret clear Qur'aanic texts to suit modern theories. Following the above example, to try to interpret the story of the creation of Adam and Eve as actually having been the creation of some Neanderthal neo-human species is almost as blasphemous as rejecting the verse in the first place![/quote]

:rofl:

 

[nasrin]

nasrin wrote:




I looked into the Muslim site. Warning bells immediately go off whenever I see a scientist claiming to know the "truth".

This following passage basically sums up the crackpottery that is www.it-is-truth.com[/URL]


From [PLAIN]www.it-is-truth.com:[/URL]




:rofl:[/QUOTE]


i did not understand what you are trying to say. would you mind to explain it a little.
thank you
take care

 

[Gokul43201]

The challenge of the Qur’aan, is to produce a single Soorah (chapter) like the Soorahs it contains. The same challenge is repeated in the Qur’aan several times. The challenge to produce a Soorah, which, in beauty, eloquence, depth and meaning is at least somewhat similar to a Qur’aanic Soorah.

Unfortunately Nasrin, beauty, eloquence and depth are subjective qualities and can not be determined to an arbitrary extent by an impartial judge. So this is no proof of God.

And additionally, there are many people that believe there are more beautiful or eloquent pieces of writing than the quoted text.

And in response to your provided link, here's another : http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#external

 

[nasrin]

Unfortunately Nasrin, beauty, eloquence and depth are subjective qualities and can not be determined to an arbitrary extent by an impartial judge. So this is no proof of God.

And additionally, there are many people that believe there are more beautiful or eloquent pieces of writing than the quoted text.

And in response to your provided link, here's another : http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/#external

thanks for your provided link, the first thing i read on that link page is the line that says contradicts, if you think there is contradicts in Qur'an then it is absolutely not ture, there is a person who just made a lists of contradicts about qur'an and i read an article answering that person and the mistake the person made was he didn't understand Qur'an language and took its meaning the way he wanted. here is the link to it:
http://www.islamselect.com/english/index.php?ref=575&pg=mat&ln=2&PHPSESSID=e9754789665f257ffcc610dc8e993ea6
and about beauty, well brother this world is wonderful and nature all around us. one simply gets lost when he/she sees the beautiful sky turns so many colors and design and so on. here is a verse from Qur'an to me it is the most wonderful words on Earth that describes nature in such a beautiful way.
you guys were looking for proves for God existence, but i didn't know that the intention behind was different. well, for God existence that quote is enough if one takes it seriously. to go into to Qur'an you need to be open minded and free of everything with thoughts to sink inside it. but if you go into it with all that contradicts stuffs, it is evil side that will make you do things that way. God clearly stated in Qur'an there is no Contradicts in it for it is not written by human like us. and you will find so, if you are open hearted. there are so many people did and one example is the most popular singer of UK, whose now name is Yusuf Islam.
thanks once again. i will try to visit that site in dept. okay. bye.

002.164 Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an Earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

Al-Qur'an, 002.164 (Al-Baqara [The Cow])

Text Copied from DivineIslam's Qur'an Viewer software v2.8

 

[nasrin]

just one more thing, who runs that site may i know? is there some islamic scholars and i mean a well known one who is there also?

 

[Smurf]

This question has probably been asked before but its a good question and I'd like a shot at dealing with it. Let's get down to basics. Never mind the Bible at this stage. I would like all those atheists or agnostics out there to state precisely what they would regard as satisfactory proof to them that God exists. If you believe that there is no such thing as God what would it take to change your mind, (assuming it is open to be changed of course)?

The bable fish.

 

[olde drunk]

how many times do we have to go through this?? if you 'believe' in the bible, you have one god. if you believe in the tora, another god. etc. etc. etc.

no matter what, if there is a god, s/he/it is of a nature that all the books combined do not reveal the truth. these books flow as a matter of worship, not proof. belief in a god is a personal value based on our individual connection. even atheism, etc are valid.

we will believe what is appropriate for us (the individual) at any given point in time. there will never be an external proof because god is a matter of faith.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[musky_ox]

There is obviously no absolute evidence for God existing, you are just trying to raise a stink. Anyways, there are 2 options: creation, or luck. The way i see it, by taking down 1 theory, you are proving the other. We can point out many holes and inconsistancies in the random chance theory. Evolutionists cannot provide explanations for everything with their theory, it is full of holes.