Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Evidence of God?

  1. Dec 20, 2003 #1
    If God does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads! So what if the probability of life on this planet began with a couple of flashes of lightning in a pool of water (or, a myriad of lightning flashes -- each time rearranging the molecular structure of the water -- over the eons). It all sounds plausible to me! Neither does it negate a God, in His "infinite way," in any way shape or form.

    If God does exist, then perhaps we should be looking at the whole thing holistically, rather than by digging in the soil and taking soil samples, dissecting anatomy at the cellular level, and in effect tearing the whole process apart until it's beyond recognition. There are many alternative avenues to be taken, the beginning of which would be human introspection.

    So, how is it that we can even question if God exists if it wasn't something inherent with who we were? Couldn't this be construed as evidence?

    Sure it can!

    EDIT: Changed "pretty ripe" to "plausible."
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 20, 2003 #2


    User Avatar

    No, don't be silly. One can question the existence of gods, santa, aliens, beings with magic powers and other cultural constructs without first having it as something inherent to us.
  4. Dec 20, 2003 #3
    and around and around and around and around...here we go again.

    Prove it.
    What is so ripe, cannot you image a God capable of creating life in that manner?
    In other words; there will never be a time or circumstance when the avenue for belief in a deity will be impossible. What does this tell us?
    You can believe in God(s), you can believe in “His” infinite way, not so infinite way, or any kind of way…
    If…if…if…if God doesn’t, then perhaps we shouldn’t.
    I was born without knowledge of such a thing. I cannot even recall ever thinking about such a thing prior to someone else bringing up the idea. What was inherent was no conception of what you are talking about.
    Or indoctrination.
  5. Dec 20, 2003 #4
    People, we really must stop with these religious threads...

    While it's here, though, I just want to say that I disagree with the idea that, if God existed, it would be obvious. The God of the Bible has set out specific reasons why He cannot be obvious about His existence...PM me if you want an explanation.
  6. Dec 20, 2003 #5
    One can question the validity of E = MC2 as well. So what are you trying to tell me, that 1 + 1 = 3?

    I personally don't maintain a belief in Santa Claus (probably why I don't spend much time dwelling on Christmas), but that doesn't automatically negate the possiblity of God does it? If 1 + 1 = 2, then why can't God exist as well?
  7. Dec 20, 2003 #6
    I don't agree that this topic is religious. The last word from Kerrie was;

    "If you notice, the Religion forum no longer has "God" labeled in it...discussions regarding God must be philosophical only in the philosophy forum if they are to resume here..."

    I don't think Iacchus is pushing a particular religion, but merely being philosophical about God in general.
  8. Dec 20, 2003 #7
    Why not? for if Santa Claus does exist, then the evidence is all around us, you knuckleheads!

    No more than refusal to believe in Santa negates the possibility of Santa.
  9. Dec 20, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    No, I'm telling you the argument you made above is nonsense. How you equate the existence of magical beings with math and relativity is beyond me.

    Man, what the hell are you talking about?
  10. Dec 20, 2003 #9
    How so? By tearing it down piece by piece or, by trying to understand how it works and comes together as a whole?

    Perhaps you've misunderstood me. What I'm saying is that in all actuallity this is probably how it occurred. And by "ripe," I mean it's a fertile idea which is ripe for the picking.

    What it tells me is that there will always be those who wish to scoff, in which I guess I've come to the right place, or have I? :wink:

    I can also choose to experience what it means as well, rather than just have knowledge (or faith) in something.

    Are you suggesting that the proof is forthcoming that He doesn't exist? If not, then I guess we have grounds for debating it now don't we?

    So, is there anything that you have learned about things inherent with our nature since after your birth?

    Would you say the understanding of 1 + 1 = 2 is inherent? If not, then how could you possibly understand it to be so?

    Yes, there's always that possibility.

    And yet if God does exist, then I'd say He's got a lot of people fooled, because He's done such damn good job of creating "this illusion" we call the material world. Hmm ... It almost sounds like "magic" now doesn't it? ... And a lot of people questioning as well.
  11. Dec 20, 2003 #10
    Thanks, I was going to suggest that he leave it up to the mentors to decide.
  12. Dec 20, 2003 #11
    Acutally I think the answer becomes more readily apparent to the degree that you're looking for it. Which isn't to say that people aren't going to believe what they want to believe, because that's very true as well. But then again, taking a poll is by no means going to solve the issue either.
  13. Dec 20, 2003 #12
    Why is it that self-certainty and foolishness tend to go hand in hand?

    There's nothing about human intelligence that doesn't conceptualize, be it about math, God, or whatever. So you can't discount God based upon the fact that it's a conceptualization alone which, is what it seems you're trying to do with me. :wink:
  14. Dec 20, 2003 #13
    Absolutely! ...
  15. Dec 20, 2003 #14
    Prove that if God exists, the evidence is all around us any way you’re able to do so. In other words; support your assertion.
    Ok, I think in fact that I did misunderstand what “ripe” meant.
    Call it scoffing if you want, but what it was meant to tell you is that if you’re going to demand the nonexistence of God to be utterly proven, prior to cessation of belief, that forever will you be a theist. So, it is a pointless point because you could just as easily exchange Santa for God.
    So long as you don’t wave around the big idea that everyone else is in the same position as you I don’t really have a problem with that.
    I’m suggesting there may be other matters to attend besides driving ourselves insane with “ifs”.
    Yes, over and over and over and over,…, endlessly…
    Yes, I seek the fetal heartbeat and warmth.
    No, it had to be explained over and over and over and over because it isn’t inherent, it is assigned, and must therefore be memorized. Are you suggesting I should memorize that God exists, and if so, why?
    Finally, something we may agree on!
    Applying it honestly to yourself will be the tricky part.
    The “Tricky-God” scenario, as I coined the phrase…
    Who am I, in that case, to attempt to defeat the wishes of God? If ‘he’ wants it that way, fine. Interesting too, you use of the word “illusion”. Is this god you have invented incapable of creating more than illusion?
  16. Dec 20, 2003 #15


    User Avatar

    I don't know, because people who believe in magical beings tend to be fools?

    Err, no. I'm telling you we can discount the silly premise that belief in gods is evidence for gods in the same sense that belief in leprechauns and fairies does not constitute evidence for said entities.
  17. Dec 20, 2003 #16
    You begin by saying the assertion "must" be supportable if, in fact He does exist, in which case it doesn't require proof, as much as the realization that He does exist. The difference here being if someone is willing to listen (due to their own questioning perhaps) or, if they're totally close-minded about it.

    In which case we seem to be put in the position to where we're to choose one or the other aren't we?

    And yet 1 + 1 does not equal 3, or does it?

    What about this great big wonderful idea about the theory of evolution then? Aren't we basically putting everyone in the same category as well?

    You mean like quantum theory?

    Yes, and we no doubt here about the merits of quantum theory over and over again ...

    Well, it was pretty "obvious" when it was explained to me.

    Absolutely not.

    Indeed, and yet one can only truly speak for oneself.

    Of course. And yet I would be even greater than He, if He were truly "my invention." :wink:
  18. Dec 20, 2003 #17
    What do you mean by magic? Something which isn't possible, or real? Whereas belief in and of itself does not accomplish anything, as it's comparable to having knowledge of something, but without the actual experience which gave rise to it in the first place.

    And yet all this suggests is that there is something going on, possibly supernatural, that we don't understand.
  19. Dec 20, 2003 #18
    No, I’m making no such assertion as this. You are the one who made the claim concerning evidence, not me. I’m asking you to support your assertion. I’m still waiting for an answer.
    False, without some personal knowledge about it there is nothing to choose at all.
    You completely miss the point. The number three could have just as easily been assigned to represent the amount of fingers on one hand. By convention it represents less than this, and calling it anything you please will not change the fact that your finger count isn’t going to either increase or decrease.
    You’ve been fishing for herring, I see, and have caught a few of the red ones. No thanks, I don’t have an appetite for fish tonight.
    BS, you had to memorize it just like everyone else.
    Yes, and I have been honest with myself. Does this mean you should believe me, no, and that is why you shouldn’t expect anyone to believe you either.
  20. Dec 20, 2003 #19
    What I'm saying is, if in fact God does exist, and we (the majority or, whatever the "we" implies) are unable to ascertain this, then perhaps we're going about it the wrong way.

    Granted, I don't have a whole long list of things to rattle off to you at this time about the evidence but, I will say that I have been able to ascertain this question for myself. While I do know for a fact that a majority of the people are in the dark on the matter, whether they say they believe or they don't.

    Do you have some personal knowledge on the theory of evolution then or, have you pretty much taken it upon "faith?"

    No, the number 3 follows in succession to the number 2, and it's quite clear that 1 + 1 does not equal 3, unless of course you would have me believe otherwise?

    Actually, I don't know what the heck it is you're trying to say? :wink:

    Indeed, some people might consider such things as quantum theory a "useless obsession."

    Memorizing the numbering tables, perhaps, but I sure don't remember having a problem memorizing 1 + 1 = 2. Irregardless, it no longer requires someone to repeat it over and over again which, is the whole point, because it's blatantly obvious now.

    Then why should I even have to consider what you have to say here now?

    Actually I'm pretty good about keeping my mouth shut around other people about such things, but you know what, that doesn't leave much else to talk about -- especially when you're trying to be honest about it.
  21. Dec 20, 2003 #20
    So we should just keep at it until we have ascertained that God exists, even if God does not?
    That’s exactly what I thought, however that isn’t exactly what I meant. Supposing I decide that God exists I want to know why I should find evidence all around me. In other words, why couldn’t God have created everything without leaving evidence? I especially ask this since you yourself spoke of what a good job God seemed to be doing of fooling people…
    Does that help to clarify my thoughts?
    Yes I know, it’s terrible to have the answers and yet be surrounded by the profane.
    Fishing again I see.
    You miss the point, again. Humans defined it to be that way, no big mystery there. Simply swap everything you know about the symbol 2 with the symbol 3. Now 1+1=3, 1+1+1=2, and 2+3=5. As long as you remain consistent it works, regardless of the particular symbols used, so there is nothing magical about 1+1=2, please read over my statements again. The concept of 2 being twice as many as 1 is something else, but by now I have grown weary and don’t recall what you were trying to get at by bringing this up in the first instance.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook