Can you prove God's non-existence(question only for atheists,if possible)?

[zoobyshoe]

The fact that meditation can cause these experiences and that people can induce these experiences on themselves at will, is an idication that it is not merely a seizure-caused-hallucination(it can be a hallucination though). Unless of course, it has been shown that meditation can cause seizures, but I am not aware that this is the case.

When meditators hallucinate, according to the book I read, the problem can be corrected by correcting their breathing. They have generally, it was suggested, fallen into the habit of not breathing deeply enough. That being the case, it is not unreasonable to suspect a simple partial seizure as the cause of the hallucination because lack of oxygen to the brain is a common precipitant of seizures. So, I don't think your assertion, that the fact it comes out of meditation indicates it is probably not a seizure, is warranted. You can't rule any reasonable neurological explanation out on the basis of it being meditation.

The second chapter of that book I reccomended to you elsewhere; "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks, is called "The Last Hippie." It is the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good that I've ever seen. Briefly, it tells the story of a guy who joins a meditation group and seems to find enlightenment almost instantly, becoming an extremely happy, mellow, cheerful, lovable person. The others look to him as an example of how successful meditation can be. He becomes mellower and mellower, filled with equanimity. Nothing seems to bother him, he accepts everything good or unpleasant with the same unpeterbable peace of mind. He stops bathing, and shaving, and washing his clothes. Eventually he stops doing just about anything. Finally, the others suspect something is wrong. They take him to the doctor. Turns out he has a big tumor in one of his frontal lobes. They could have caught it months earlier, but everyone assumed, if it comes out of meditation it must be a good thing.

It's a cautionary tale, that's all: don't fault anyone for first suspecting neurological pathologies. Stuff happens.

I'll get to the rest of your questions later.

 

[PIT2]

That being the case, it is not unreasonable to suspect a simple partial seizure as the cause of the hallucination because lack of oxygen to the brain is a common precipitant of seizures.

U might suspect this, but i was merely wondering if there is any science behind this suspicion. For instance any research that indicates meditation can indeed cause seizures, or even that breathing techniques can cause seizures. I suspect if these were the case, meditation would be banned by now.

The second chapter of that book I reccomended to you elsewhere; "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks, is called "The Last Hippie." It is the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good that I've ever seen. Briefly, it tells the story of a guy who joins a meditation group and seems to find enlightenment almost instantly, becoming an extremely happy, mellow, cheerful, lovable person.

...

They take him to the doctor. Turns out he has a big tumor in one of his frontal lobes.

I do not think this example is relevant. U talk about it being "the best case against jumping to the conclusion that everything that comes out of meditation is automatically good".

Well first of all, of course not everything that comes out of meditation will be good. (there must be some bad side effects )

Secondly, the fact that this guy developed a brain-tumor, cannot be seen as a result of the meditation itself, neither can the fact that it was discovered too late.

Thirdly, the link between braintumor and the sensation of enlightenment cannot solidly be demonstrated by this case. I am sure there have been people that meditated while having a migraine, a headache, an ear-infection, or a broken leg for that matter.

 

[Overdose]

My logic is that if a known pathology causes the same illusion, then it isn't unreasonable to first suspect the known cause.

Well, not to be rude but there is no logic atall to what youre saying here,
there is no reason to believe that the known patholagy (in this case a seizure) must be an illusion. Therefore youre using one lack of/or bad reasoning to justify another. And still without actually giving a real reason to why you suspect these experiences must be illusions in the first place.

You seemed to be saying there was no justification for suspecting it could be an illusion. There is, actually, a decent reason for suspecting that.

Im not saying there is no justification whatsoever for comming to that conclusion, rather I am saying if that's the conclusion someone wants to arrive at they should at least have some kind of reason, rather than just making it a vauge assumption.

This, for me, is where I have to stick to "I don't know". The urge to call it something has to be resisted. There aren't enough good leads.

But you feel comfortable enough to label experiences of a collective consciousness 'illusions', why not stick with 'i don't know' in that instance as well?

 

[Overdose]

i think we've gone a bit off topic in this thread...woops : p

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, not to be rude but there is no logic atall to what youre saying here,
there is no reason to believe that the known patholagy (in this case a seizure) must be an illusion.

No reason to be absolutly certain, yes, you are correct. But what I keep trying to point out is that you are the one who cringes at the suggestion it is an illusion with no proof to show me that it isn't an illusion. I am not trying to convince you it is an illusion. I just can't understand why you are so convinced about it that you would cringe at the suggestion it isn't what you assumed.

Many illusions and hallucinations are found in simple partial seizures. When the seizure activity hits the various parts of the brain where the senses are controlled, all kinds of sensory illusions and hallucinations result. People see, feel, taste, hear, and smell all kinds of things that aren't there. When it hits the parts of the brain where emotions are contolled, all kinds of superstrong emotions result. People have rage atacks, some are overcome with intense fear, some become giddy and begin to laugh uncontrollably, some begin to cry uncontrollably. Most of them, you'd have no problem accepting as illusions. You are asking me to put brackets around this one, and, just on your sayso, put into a completely different category: this one is without any illusory content. Maybe it is. Could be. I'm open minded. I just don't find the assertion that my train of thought has no logic whatever behind it to be warranted.

 

[No-where-man]

You cannot prove nor disprove it atm. Everything is a theory.

If everything is a theory,than we wouldn't possesses tehcnology we have today,we would still in stone age.
If theory works in practice it's no longer theory-it's a proven fact.What I said about energy and its forms is a proven fact.

 

[James R]

No-where-man:

The problem with God paradox that he,she,it can't be eternal.

Most religions say the exact opposite.

Sooner or later everything has to end.

Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?

The only problem if God existed he would show to humans and say you will obey me or something like that.It's all pšroduct of evolution,nothing more.No God wants to be invisible.

Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?

You said God creates laws,but how can he exist if his non-corporeal entity is not made of laws.

Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?

Universe exists because of the laws,no laws no universe,everything would become-what people use to call nothingness.

And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?

To do something God needs energy.

Why?

I bet in exactly 100$ dollars that God doesn't exist,after all he doesn't exist in me since I don't need him at all.

All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.

What I meant to say(to correct myself) it's all product of evolution,nothing more.

Maybe God created evolution.

 

[No-where-man]

First, I am not qualified to contribute to this thread, but I am following it with interest. I was wondering if. perhaps, it might help atheists to respond if you made a little more clear what you mean by "prove."

If you mean "prove with absolute certainty for every person who has every lived or who will ever be born" then, of course, you have set an impossible task. There are people who reject that Apollo missions landed on the moon, that appropriate blood transfusions make sense, and on and on.

If you mean "prove to you, personally" it may be that others do not know enough about you, and what you have already studied, to assist as fully as possible. If you are looking for help in discussions with acquaintances who are believers, it is probably better to refer them to some thousands of years of philosophical investigations on the nature of proof, reality, knowledge, God, soul, the nature of man, and so forth. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. If, in fact, this is the motivation behind your inquiry, then C1ay's resonse is the most lucid and cogent.

If you mean "prove as we believe certain scientific theories, such as Relativity, Evolution, Genetics, etc., to be 'proved'" it would first be better to ensure we all know what we mean by these theorems are proved. We run into the same problems here as we do in the prior three paragraphs.

However, if you mean "there is this idea, and it appears consistent with what we observe, and we do not have enough meaningful, contrary observations to deny the idea, and the idea exlains a lot of other things we can observe, and the idea correlates to other branches of knowledge as well, and the ideas further development is consistent with itself" then it is possible others can assist.

There is a difficulty, well-discussed in all manner of philosophy, religion, etc. It is much harder--in fact, almost impossible--to prove a negative than a positive. Consequently, by the very nature of proof, it would, from the start, be harder to disprove the existence of God than to prove God's existence. It is our nature to work with what is, most of the time, and not with the absence of what is. We commonly discuss how many lumens are given by a light source. We do not, typically, discuss how many "darkens" are given by a non-light source. It seems to have to do with both the nature of people and with the relative "easiness" of examing what is.

Given that this thread is predicated, then, on the admittedly harder flip side of the coin, I watch with interest. So far, while some specifics of the religiosity experience have been discussed, there has not yet developed a broad basis for proof according to the way scientific proofs are established.

But no God-it doesn't matter good or evil would want to stay invisible if 95% of the world population if everybody is hailing his name.
This is all auto-suggestion,much like you can believe ghosts exist.Here is how:Psychologists have made an very interesting experiment.They asked one group of people to go into the house that was cursed(but of course it wasn't cursed at all,but SCIENTISTS SAID TO THIS FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE that house IS CURSED).This first group of people believed to scientists saw ghosts and felt them all over and inside the supposedly cursed house-it's a funny thing that scientists have detected various magnetic fields in that moment connected with people's brains,since brain's activity of each of the men and women was active when they started to "see" ghosts.

To the other,second group of people was told that there are no ghosts,and and this second group of people didn't see any ghost-and there were no magnetic fields.So,you see this a definite proof how people are naive.First they believed winds and mountains are gods,aswell as seas and oceans-but they were wrong-if humans could have discovered the entire universe and well beyond(but in reality neither will ever be possible) they will find no God.
God created universe without leaving any evidence?
That's not God.

These 2 groups of people proved that ghosts exist because they want,as well as God/Gods exist because people want to-God/Gods do exist because people want to see God/Gods.Trust me,I have tested it on myself believe in something you'll see something(although isn' there),don't believe in something you wouldn't see anything.Man creates his own God/Gods,because peoples' brains are very powerful natural tools.

 

[No-where-man]

No-where-man:



Most religions say the exact opposite.

No-where-man:You believe to all religions say.They only say in what they believe.When the believe and see their God.That's auto-suggestion.Man is very easy to be manipulated.

Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

No-where-man:None lives forever.Death is the strongest thing.God can live 10^1000...000..000..000...000...000...000000...000 millleniums,but eventually he will die.Nobody can have infinite amounts energy reserves.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?

No-where-man:Your argument doesn't prove anything.Every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.That's the basic point of all of it.What you're saying can't be said for God's existence.If you were born in the ages when people think mere wind is a god,or a mountain,or clouds you would believe or be agnostic.But everywhere where science penetrates there is less and less place for the neccesity of God's existence.More and more science penetrates there is less place for gods and wonderings,but that opens another question-does science and technology make us happier and healthier?I'd say,the answer is the opposite.
After all,in the latest statistics 95% of all of the world's scientists say that God doesn't exist at all.




Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?

No-where-man:I explained above-every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.Your point of God working in mysterious ways is religious point,I don't buy,I'm purely talking about God's existence from logic and science.

Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?

No-where-man:Let's say he is beyond matter and energy,but that opens up a new question where does he live-none can really be infinite.If there was an infinite God-that would require infinite amounts of useful energy-which is totally impossible.

And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?



Why?

No-where-man:Give me,one just one example where something exists if there are no rules/laws-everything including the entire universe,every living being tends to achieve an balance.Once balance is disrupted everything ends.For God to exist,he couldn't be able to do whatever he wants to do,but to comply to laws,and these laws don't have to be laws of matter and energy at all.If the supposed God is coming from the higher dimension-there are different laws of physics.


All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.

No-where-man:It proves to everyone God's non-existence,not to just me.Here is why(from the below):
This is all auto-suggestion,much like you can believe ghosts exist.Here is how:Psychologists have made an very interesting experiment.They asked one group of people to go into the house that was cursed(but of course it wasn't cursed at all,but SCIENTISTS SAID TO THIS FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE that house IS CURSED).This first group of people believed to scientists saw ghosts and felt them all over and inside the supposedly cursed house-it's a funny thing that scientists have detected various magnetic fields in that moment connected with people's brains,since brain's activity of each of the men and women was active when they started to "see" ghosts.

To the other,second group of people was told that there are no ghosts,and and this second group of people didn't see any ghost-and there were no magnetic fields.So,you see this a definite proof how people are naive.First they believed winds and mountains are gods,aswell as seas and oceans-but they were wrong-if humans could have discovered the entire universe and well beyond(but in reality neither will ever be possible) they will find no God.
God created universe without leaving any evidence?
That's not God.

These 2 groups of people proved that ghosts exist because they want,as well as God/Gods exist because people want to-God/Gods do exist because people want to see God/Gods.Trust me,I have tested it on myself believe in something you'll see something(although it isn't there),don't believe in something you wouldn't see anything.Man creates his own God/Gods,because peoples' brains are very powerful natural tools.

Maybe God created evolution.

No-where-man:That's abiogenesis,nothing more.I'll answer next week,or the week after,I'll see how much time I would have.
Cheers!

 

[Entropy]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

Well, if you want to here the Biblical answer for this, proof of God is all around you. Meaning that the fact that anything exists proves there is a God. Personally, that's why I know there is a God. From what I can deduce it seems impossible for physical laws to come out of nothingness. When I mean nothingness, I mean nothingness. Not empty space, a timeless, spaceless, nether. No flucuations, no quantum foam. The concept of the universe always existing doesn't wash with me either. Because time isn't all encompassing. Time is just another dimension, just interpeted differently. The only things that makes sense to me is an omipotent being not bound by any laws or restrictions that could have made our universe and set its laws.

The only problem if God existed he would show to humans and say you will obey me or something like that.It's all pšroduct of evolution,nothing more.No God wants to be invisible.

Of coarse, because you know exactly what an all-knowing, infinitely intelligent being would want, seeing how your finite IQ is so close to God's infinite IQ.

That's abiogenesis,nothing more.

No, abiogenesis is the "evolution" of non-living matter to living matter. Abiogenesis isn't the creation of evolution, just evolution for living matter.

 

[theCandyman]

Intresting thread.

If we understood God, that would not exactly made Him God now, would it? It seems the whole idea behind God is that He is infinite, and in effect, incomprehensible.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I don't see why. If God wrote a book explaining everything about himself and referring to himself as God, which he can do seeing as he is omnipotent, then if by discovering this information he ceased to be God, then the understanding would transpire to be wrong and we'd know nothing about God. That's a paradox!

 

[Overdose]

No reason to be absolutly certain, yes, you are correct. But what I keep trying to point out is that you are the one who cringes at the suggestion it is an illusion with no proof to show me that it isn't an illusion. I am not trying to convince you it is an illusion. I just can't understand why you are so convinced about it that you would cringe at the suggestion it isn't what you assumed.

Well, I've experienced an expansion of my consciousness first-hand so its not something i base on assumption, its hard to explain how i knew it wasnt an illusion, the nearest thing i could compare it to is being in love, if you are in love you don't question it, you just know it.
To put it prehaps in a different way, to question the validity of my experience would be about as absurd as asking myself if the conversation i just had with a friend really happened. Thats how rooted in reality the experience was.

Now if you believe that an experience like this might be illusionary i have no problem with that, if i didnt have first hand knowledge in this instance i would probably be open to the same conclusion too.
The thing that I am really opposed to however is people people classifying such experiences in an off-hand manner as glitches/malfunctions and offen in the process robbing them of any meaning or worth. If such an extreme position is going to be taken then i at least want to know why, even if i don't agree with the reasoning given.

Many illusions and hallucinations are found in simple partial seizures. When the seizure activity hits the various parts of the brain where the senses are controlled, all kinds of sensory illusions and hallucinations result. People see, feel, taste, hear, and smell all kinds of things that aren't there. When it hits the parts of the brain where emotions are contolled, all kinds of superstrong emotions result. People have rage atacks, some are overcome with intense fear, some become giddy and begin to laugh uncontrollably, some begin to cry uncontrollably. Most of them, you'd have no problem accepting as illusions. You are asking me to put brackets around this one, and, just on your sayso, put into a completely different category: this one is without any illusory content. Maybe it is. Could be. I'm open minded. I just don't find the assertion that my train of thought has no logic whatever behind it to be warranted.

Well i wouldn't ask you to take anything on my sayso, and i think my posts in this thread consistantly show that. I can see now from talking abit more that the certainly i read into your previous posts was actually just a possibility of quite a few you are willing to entertain, which again is a position i can identify with had i not experienced this first hand.

 

[NT4.0]

A very interesting question. As it seems to me, however, it is wrongly stated. In scientific approach, first we discover something, then we define it. Here it is vice versa -- we have defined God and are trying to discover it. Looks more like cheating, i.e. trying to find the pieces of reality that somehow correspond to your hypothesis, and therefore stating your hypothesis to be right.

My proof to God's non-existence would be that if we don't have enough grounds to state the fact, then we may not state it -- thus it does not even need being disproven. A simple example would be saying that in the Galaxy X on the planet Y which is the 5th in the solar system of the star Z, on its north pole there is a big chocolate bunny. This statement is impossible to disprove, but as we don't have any reason to state it, we may not do it. Just simple logic.

Also -- the idea of God comes from religious beliefs which were primarily used for describing the outside world (i.e. the origin of the nature events like rain or the blue sky); naturally, the people extrapolated the social hierarchy onto the natural world -- like, if there should be King of the state, there should be God of the world. As religion gives a completely wrong and perverse description of reality, there is a very high probability of the idea of God being same wrong.

 

[Jameson]

I would say the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove it wrong to someone who says that God is outside of my ability to comprehend. The concept of God is full of paradox's, which normally might lead one to say this concept is false but some say otherwise. I think for most people who believe in God, a proof is not important, as it is faith that is crucial for this belief. Others luckily take a more thoughtful approach and we find ourselves debating in forums such as this.

My question is: Why should I have to prove God doesn't exist? You're the one who claimed He does. Normally when one states that something exists it is not a proof to simply say "You can't prove it doesn't!" So my next statement is -

Prove God does exist.

Jameson

 

[Overdose]

I would say the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I cannot prove it wrong to someone who says that God is outside of my ability to comprehend. The concept of God is full of paradox's, which normally might lead one to say this concept is false but some say otherwise. I think for most people who believe in God, a proof is not important, as it is faith that is crucial for this belief. Others luckily take a more thoughtful approach and we find ourselves debating in forums such as this.

My question is: Why should I have to prove God doesn't exist? You're the one who claimed He does. Normally when one states that something exists it is not a proof to simply say "You can't prove it doesn't!" So my next statement is -

Prove God does exist.

Jameson

I see exactly what youre saying and i agree to an extent, but look at it this way, atheists are essentially saying that despite everything we experience day to day having a first cause, we are going to decide that the universe itself has no cause, it simply came into being for no reason.
Further still, they are saying that they do not hold out the slightest possibility, not even a fraction of a percentage that there may have been a something before the universe, and that something may have triggered its creation. Now i personally think that's a pretty bold claim, to state with absolute certainty that nothing might have come before the universe and aided its creation. Is it really that unfair to ask an atheist to give proof and reasoning for their incredibly self-assured claim?

 

[Evo]

Now i personally think that's a pretty bold claim, to state with absolute certainty that nothing might have come before the universe and aided its creation.

No more bold than a person claiming that there is a god or that the universe was intentionally created.

Is it really that unfair to ask an atheist to give proof and reasoning for their incredibly self-assured claim?

Yes, it's rather ridiculous to ask people for "proof and reasoning" just because they do not believe in something that someone else believes in.

I believe that an invisible potato created the universe, it told me so. If you don't believe me then prove it's not true, if you can't prove it's not true, then it's true. That's exactly what religious fanatics do. Why does it always seem to be christians? Are there any non christians here that believe in a non christian god that have problems with atheists?

I don't mind if someone believes in a god, I don't mind if someone believes in some supernatural force or whatever. Most atheists do not go around bashing religion, if they do, that's not nice, but there is nothing wrong with stating they do not believe.

 

[arildno]

I think you're wrong, Evo:
I'm sure it is the imperceptible green hat floating above my head which created the universe.
But perhaps on a deeper level, a potato and a hat is the same thing, right?

 

[Evo]

I think you're wrong, Evo:
I'm sure it is the imperceptible green hat floating above my head which created the universe.
But perhaps on a deeper level, a potato and a hat is the same thing, right?

My potato wears a green hat! What can it mean?

 

[arildno]

My potato wears a green hat! What can it mean?

:rofl:
Damned if I know.
(Or was that blessed?? )

 

[nwall]

I believe that an invisible potato created the universe, it told me so. If you don't believe me then prove it's not true, if you can't prove it's not true, then it's true. That's exactly what religious fanatics do. Why does it always seem to be christians?

If you live in the US then it always seems to be christians because 80% of US citizens identify themselves as christians. Why does it always seem christians are the ones buying fries from McDonalds?

 

[Evo]

If you live in the US then it always seems to be christians because 80% of US citizens identify themselves as christians.

Good point, maybe it's not this bad in other countries. I know I'm sick of it here in the US. Why can't people mind their own business? If you want to believe in God, that's great, if you don't, that's great. Just keep it to yourselves.

Why does it always seem christians are the ones buying fries from McDonalds?

That's a scary thought. Probably why I buy my fries at Hardee's?

 

[polyb]

In my theology I have a green hat that wears a potatoe() that worries about being saved from the great deep frier! :rofl:

There is also a lot of talk about a third, forth, and fith eye! :rofl:

 

[Evo]

In my theology I have a green hat that wears a potatoe() that worries about being saved from the great deep frier! :rofl:

Could it be that potatoes can be many things to many people?

There is also a lot of talk about a third, forth, and fifth eye! :rofl:

Potatoes have many eyes, this is a proven fact, and perhaps why they are considered all seeing.

 

[polyb]

All praise the omniscient potato!

Believe in the redemptive powers of the potato or face the deep frier! :rofl:


Do potatoes have toes?

 

[arildno]

No, a potato is a subspecies of a TOE.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, I've experienced an expansion of my consciousness first-hand so its not something i base on assumption, its hard to explain how i knew it wasnt an illusion

Explaining any experience to anyone who hasn't also had it can be just about immpossible. I understand that frustration. If you were to set your mind to trying to verbally explain it you might succeed giving some people a usable understanding, but they'd never know what the experience in question was actually like.

the nearest thing i could compare it to is being in love, if you are in love you don't question it, you just know it.

If you are in love, you don't question that you are in love, no. However, remember that often when people are in love it fades over time, or gets modified with more experience of the object of the love. It isn't unreasonable for a third party to suspect it may be a fleeting experience. Not that I don't realize that's something a person in love doesn't particularly want to have brought up.

To put it prehaps in a different way, to question the validity of my experience would be about as absurd as asking myself if the conversation i just had with a friend really happened. Thats how rooted in reality the experience was.

Understood. This, though, is where you have to be the open minded person: I can tell you of two strange experiences I've had where someone said something very thought provoking and pointed to me in a conversation, but when I went back to them later to bring it up and discuss it further, they had no idea what I was talking about, and couldn't remember the conversations I was referring to. Before I went back to re-approach the subject, it would have been absurd for me to think they wouldn't know what I was talking about. To this day I don't know if I concocted a false memory, or if they experienced some kind of spot amnesia.

Now if you believe that an experience like this might be illusionary i have no problem with that, if i didnt have first hand knowledge in this instance i would probably be open to the same conclusion too.

This is probably the very best we can do given I haven't had the experience. As long as you have no problem with my suspecting it was an illusion I'm fine. I am not asserting that I absolutly know what is going on with this experience.

The thing that I am really opposed to however is people people classifying such experiences in an off-hand manner as glitches/malfunctions and offen in the process robbing them of any meaning or worth. If such an extreme position is going to be taken then i at least want to know why, even if i don't agree with the reasoning given.

My original post in this thread gave the erroneous impression that my thoughts about this are much more off-hand than they actually are. I threw it out like that, brief and sloppy, yes, to see if the originator of this thread would be interested in following this train of though, in his quest for a "scientific" disproof of the existence of God. He asked. I answered: you sorta, kinda can do it via neurology.

This is the more important question for you to tackle, I think: is it actually robbed of meaning and worth if it is proven to be an illusion? If it changes someone's life and attitude for the better, then how could it be ultimately worthless? Here's some ammunition for you for free, Overdose, because I think you're essentially a thoughtful person: Color has been scientifically proven to be an illusion created in our brains. Color does not actually exist as a property of the objects we see. Strictly speaking we should only see different shades of gray. Does this mean color is meaningless and worthless?

I can see now from talking abit more that the certainly i read into your previous posts was actually just a possibility of quite a few you are willing to entertain, which again is a position i can identify with had i not experienced this first hand.

This, I am happy to hear. Generally, though, I wouldn't bring things up in this forum that I feel protective about, that I don't want picked at by skeptics. I am very fond of bigfoot, for example, but not so attached that I get upset if someone says "That's a total load of cr@p!."

My main reason for persistantly raising the subject of simple partial seizures is in the hope that the information will get to people who are being tormented by them without knowing what they are. The majority of simple partial symptoms are very, very disturbing. Some are downright terrifying. I have often seen what are clearly simple partial seizures described as various paranormal events by people who've never heard of a simple partial. This is a real problem if they are in fear or distress because of them. I raise the subject even with people who aren't in any particular distress in the off chance that someone who is might be reading it.

 

[Jameson]

I see exactly what youre saying and i agree to an extent, but look at it this way, atheists are essentially saying that despite everything we experience day to day having a first cause, we are going to decide that the universe itself has no cause, it simply came into being for no reason.
Further still, they are saying that they do not hold out the slightest possibility, not even a fraction of a percentage that there may have been a something before the universe, and that something may have triggered its creation. Now i personally think that's a pretty bold claim, to state with absolute certainty that nothing might have come before the universe and aided its creation. Is it really that unfair to ask an atheist to give proof and reasoning for their incredibly self-assured claim?

The definition of an atheist is one without the belief in God. This does not imply any of their thoughts on the universe and its origins. I think you are associating a common stereotype, just as if I said all Christians are conservative Republicans.

Why do atheists have to prove theists wrong? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, it's just you haven't proved you're right.

Jameson

 

[The Rev]

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?

Since there is no evidence of any kind, either way, I can't see how you could.

$$\psi$$

The Rev

 

[pbj59]

Proof?

Could it be possible that early man experienced a visit by an advanced culture that exposed them to things unexplainable by their current knowledge base? It was then assumed that these advanced "people" were god, or GOD? Possibly they had nothing more to do with representing God then we do?
If this were true, it would explain many references to man being "in the form of God", when god could really be just the existence of conditions that allow the universe to exist? Nothing human form about it?
Just a thought.
Roy
I love the smileys available here!

 

[marlon]

First of all,I apologize to moderators,because I didn't know where to put this thread,maybe in General Philosophy forum...
I put it in the Scepticism forum,because I would like to hear what arguments sceptics have against God's existence.

What am I asking,is it possible to prove God's non-existence by logic or any other way?
I,personally,am an atheist.The real problem is when you look at it the universe seem to be like an organism-ameba that is expanding,but that doesn't prove the existence of God.My arguments are that if God existed he should have laws and the balance that support his existence.But no blance lasts for ever.Everything would fall apart-including God.So,basically even God shouldn't be eternal.
Many people-believers think that God is pure energy and that's why he is eternal-but they simply forget one crucial thing.Although energy can't be created/destroyed,it has its forms.God than would be an form of energy,and since no form of energy is eternal-everything that exists is made of zillions of forms of energy.
What are your opinions?

What a stupid question...you still did not get the point did you ? You really should start studying some religion man

marlon

 

[No-where-man]

No-where-man:



Most religions say the exact opposite.



Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?



Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?



Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?



And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?



Why?



All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.



Maybe God created evolution.

In a case you didn't see the answers,James R.,I'll rewrite them:

Most religions say the exact opposite.

No-where-man:You believe to all religions say.They only say in what they believe.When the believe and see their God.That's auto-suggestion.Man is very easy to be manipulated.

Maybe God is the exception to that rule.

No-where-man:None lives forever.Death is the strongest thing.God can live 10^1000...000..000..000...000...000...000000...000 millleniums,but eventually he will die.Nobody can have infinite amounts energy reserves.

Anyway, I bet there are photons still around that existed at the beginning of the universe, so there's at least one example of something which has existed for as long as the universe itself, and might well exist until the universe ends (if it ever does). Why not God, too?

No-where-man:Your argument doesn't prove anything.Every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.That's the basic point of all of it.What you're saying can't be said for God's existence.If you were born in the ages when people think mere wind is a god,or a mountain,or clouds you would believe or be agnostic.But everywhere where science penetrates there is less and less place for the neccesity of God's existence.More and more science penetrates there is less place for gods and wonderings,but that opens another question-does science and technology make us happier and healthier?I'd say,the answer is the opposite.
After all,in the latest statistics 95% of all of the world's scientists say that God doesn't exist at all.




Who are you to say what God wants? Did you ever hear that God works in mysterious ways?

No-where-man:I explained above-every,just about every God wouldn't want to stay invisible and untouchable at all,he would be happy if everyone is hailing his name and he would show himself to us.Your point of God working in mysterious ways is religious point,I don't buy,I'm purely talking about God's existence from logic and science.

Maybe he is beyond the laws which govern matter and energy. After all, if he is all-powerful, then he can pretty much do what he wants, right?

No-where-man:Let's say he is beyond matter and energy,but that opens up a new question where does he live-none can really be infinite.If there was an infinite God-that would require infinite amounts of useful energy-which is totally impossible.

And, so the argument goes, the laws exist because of God. No God, no laws. No laws no universe. See?



Why?

No-where-man:Give me,one just one example where something exists if there are no rules/laws-everything including the entire universe,every living being tends to achieve an balance.Once balance is disrupted everything ends.For God to exist,he couldn't be able to do whatever he wants to do,but to comply to laws,and these laws don't have to be laws of matter and energy at all.If the supposed God is coming from the higher dimension-there are different laws of physics.


All you're saying here is that you don't believe in God. But maybe God exists and doesn't care that you don't believe in him. Your non-belief, by itself, proves nothing.

No-where-man:It proves to everyone God's non-existence,not to just me.Here is why(from the below):
This is all auto-suggestion,much like you can believe ghosts exist.Here is how:Psychologists have made an very interesting experiment.They asked one group of people to go into the house that was cursed(but of course it wasn't cursed at all,but SCIENTISTS SAID TO THIS FIRST GROUP OF PEOPLE that house IS CURSED).This first group of people believed to scientists saw ghosts and felt them all over and inside the supposedly cursed house-it's a funny thing that scientists have detected various magnetic fields in that moment connected with people's brains,since brain's activity of each of the men and women was active when they started to "see" ghosts.

To the other,second group of people was told that there are no ghosts,and and this second group of people didn't see any ghost-and there were no magnetic fields.So,you see this a definite proof how people are naive.First they believed winds and mountains are gods,aswell as seas and oceans-but they were wrong-if humans could have discovered the entire universe and well beyond(but in reality neither will ever be possible) they will find no God.
God created universe without leaving any evidence?
That's not God.

These 2 groups of people proved that ghosts exist because they want,as well as God/Gods exist because people want to-God/Gods do exist because people want to see God/Gods.Trust me,I have tested it on myself believe in something you'll see something(although it isn't there),don't believe in something you wouldn't see anything.Man creates his own God/Gods,because peoples' brains are very powerful natural tools.

 

[pbj59]

Circular Athiesm

Almost everything in the known visable universe is made up of things that are round. Planets, stars, orbits, rings etc. almost everything. Even the things that don't appear round at first are prob made up of round things.
Maybe GOD is a circle, or at least it is round.
RW

 

[No-where-man]

Almost everything in the known visable universe is made up of things that are round. Planets, stars, orbits, rings etc. almost everything. Even the things that don't appear round at first are prob made up of round things.
Maybe GOD is a circle, or at least it is round.
RW

But we're talking about God not circle.God is supposed to be a living being,look at my arguments,I bet none could beat them since everything will eventually will become more and more explainable in all science and technology,and provable.You see if these today's economic and political leaders allow to science and tehcnology to evolve at this rate,there would be less and less God and his wonders.After all,people used to believe that wind is a god-now they think universe is a god,if man(I truly hope,but hard to say it) finds out all secrets of the universe,and the secret of the universe itself,than there wouldn't be any god to believe in much like wind,storms and other natural phenomenas are simply natural,not artificial made by soe being.
I explained above why God couldn't exist...oh,well.

 

[pbj59]

Probably not possible

Any knowledge we think we have or opinions we have formed about the existence (or not) of God have come from humans, so it is all flawed and skewed. We're all guessing.
Myself, I'm skeptical that God exists the way it is represented in religious writings etc. I lean more towards God being an existence of conditions that let events happen the way they do. Not a Micro-managing entity who knows all. There are too many bad things that happen for a "Good" God to be responsible for every little detail directly.
When a young person dies, some say It must be Gods will. Why? What purpose could it possibly serve to, for example, let some poor soul suffer immeasurably, and destroy their family? Even if it sets into play events that have a positive effect later, what was gained? Trade a good thing for a bad one. I don't believe it's that way. Then again, what do I know?
Roy