Is it possible to prove the existence of God?

[Borek]

It is really odd that most of the people in this forum are not religious but they keep talking and discussing this subject! This means that none of them is comfortable with his/her believes. Therefore, once a thread is posted about this subject you see most of them either try to show that there is no god or trying to restrict the characteristic of god they believe in. If you don't believe why you are bothering yourself with such a thing??

Yes, we do discuss these things, no, we don't feel urge to do so.

VISTREL - the original poster - has exactly three posts at the moment. I think you will easily find that most of these threads are started not by long timers, but by new arrivals (some of them just trolling). Why do PFers take part? Because they want to put some logic into discussion and to straighten the misconceptions people carry about what the science is and what it can/can't do. The that's the way we discuss things at PF.

At the same time we are just too nice to new members to ban them and close all these threads immediately, which would be probably the easiest approach.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is really odd that most of the people in this forum are not religious but they keep talking and discussing this subject! This means that none of them is comfortable with his/her believes. Therefore, once a thread is posted about this subject you see most of them either try to show that there is no god or trying to restrict the characteristic of god they believe in. If you don't believe why you are bothering yourself with such a thing??

The only thing I want to say to VISTREL is that it sounds very strange that you can believe in a magnificent, gorgeous and very precise universe that can exist by its own while you –neither any of us- can't believe that some pieces of wood, screws and a hammer can create a chair by their own!

Anyway, I think you have to choose your believes by yourself according to what you find suitable for you.
Good luck

Uh, not true at all.

I happen to be completely comfortable with my beliefs. I'm not religious and I certainly feel I can take part in discussions on god(s). I probably know more about any particular religion than a person who practices the religion.
Why bother yourself with discussions of whether or not god(s) exist? Well first of all, it's interesting. Second of all, I feel that when people bring belief in god(s) to a religious level that they should be deemed delusional and ALL discussions of existence of god point to this. Note that there has never been ANY convincing argument used to prove any religious god exists?

The universe is far from 'precise' I have no idea what that means. It's also hardly 'beautiful' do you know how deadly that **** is? Magnificent? Yeah man it is pretty awesome. Too bad we'll never travel further than a few planets away from our star.

 

[madness]

Note that there has never been ANY convincing argument used to prove any religious god exists?

I've also never seen a convincing argument that space or time exist, or that anything outside of my senses exists. As I said before, I think some things are so fundamental to a belief system that they are simply assumed. Throughout medieval times most people would think it was absurd to say that God doesn't exist.

 

[zomgwtf]

I've also never seen a convincing argument that space or time exist, or that anything outside of my senses exists. As I said before, I think some things are so fundamental to a belief system that they are simply assumed. Throughout medieval times most people would think it was absurd to say that God doesn't exist.

Uh, space and time are necessary constructs to explain phenomena. Religious gods are not and have been proven time and time again by scientific thought to not be necessary.

They are completely different constructs aside from they are both social constructs. One is necessary, one isn't.

I think the most convincing argument that space exist and is continuous is that you wake up every morning and get out of bed onto a solid floor. Sure one day it might not be there but for one thing it hasn't happened yet, and for another if it didn't exist you probably wouldn't either.

Space actually explains something observable. Time just further explains it.

 

[madness]

Uh, space and time are necessary constructs to explain phenomena.

Nope. Many people have argued that space and time don't exist. Julian Barbour recently had a talk at Perimeter where he presented his theory of physics in which time doesn't exist. He even went as far as to say "we have no evidence that length exists in nature, only angles" and that since length is unnecessary we should discard it - the exact same argument commonly used against God.

Religious gods are not and have been proven time and time again by scientific thought to not be necessary.

Yeah like space and time aren't necessary according to Barbour. Of course you are tacitly assuming that scientific thought is correct. My point was that we take the scientific method as axiomatic now, just as people used to take God as axiomatic.

I think the most convincing argument that space exist and is continuous is that you wake up every morning and get out of bed onto a solid floor. Sure one day it might not be there but for one thing it hasn't happened yet, and for another if it didn't exist you probably wouldn't either.

Well for a start, "scientific thought" generally favours discrete spacetime, not continuous. There is a whole can of worms when arguing about the existence of space and time which would completely derail this thread. For a philosophical discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreality_of_Time or for a physical theory look up Julian Barbour.

The point I was trying to make is that we believe many things without a "convincing argument". As I said before, God was so fundamental to peoples' worldview in medieval times that it wasn't even questioned. The second conclusion Descartes came to after "I think therefore I am" was that God must exist - after he realized he existed, that was the second most obvious thing to him.

 

[Evo]

Yes, we do discuss these things, no, we don't feel urge to do so.

VISTREL - the original poster - has exactly three posts at the moment. I think you will easily find that most of these threads are started not by long timers, but by new arrivals (some of them just trolling). Why do PFers take part? Because they want to put some logic into discussion and to straighten the misconceptions people carry about what the science is and what it can/can't do. The that's the way we discuss things at PF.

At the same time we are just too nice to new members to ban them and close all these threads immediately, which would be probably the easiest approach.

If members would ignore these threads and not post, they would just wither and die.

 

[Boy@n]

Nothing 'higher' than our understanding can ever be proven. And once we undarstand it, proving it is pointless. (Except perhaps for the sake of those who don't understand it, yet.)

Our belief in God, or not, doesn't change the truth of it, whatever it is, so, really, from where the NEED to believe either way?

If possible I'd suggest drop beliefs, go for what you sincerely feel and keep that to yourself if not asked about, don't force it onto others.

I know what I feel and think about It, but I noticed it several times, that sharing it, no matter how enthusiasticelly and truthfuly, can do more damage than good, because it 'invades' personal beliefs and convictions.

So, I won't go into details but just say that in my view, only awareness is what really matters, since awareness is what 'enables' existence.

Thus, I'd say awareness is essence of 'true' existence.

And it makes sense to consider that there are countless states or levels of awareness.

Why wouldn't there be one which is 'highest', being God?

 

[Shackleford]

How would you prove God exists anyway?

Is it not incongruous to demand tangible evidence for metaphysical assertions?

Science cannot comment on the existence of God nor disprove it. Still, it seems science that is observable, testable, and repeatable tends to point in the direction of a transcendent being who is the prime mover for the universe. Why? Unimaginably complex design and order. Why does the universe do what it does? Consistently and predictably. Science can answer the how not the why.

It is also not logically inconsistent for something to be entirely self-sufficient or self-sustaining (re: if God made everything, who made God?).

If there is no God, no absolutes, then there is anarchy and chaos, from a moral perspective that is. Consensus does not matter because I could negate your consensus with mine, so it's a dead end road. Curious how we still all generally have, as humans, even over the annuls of time, the same basic moral "conscience."

At any rate, Dave was correct. It seems that, here, anyway, we can only criticize the validity of an argument. To me, it's not that I explain the evidence with God, it seems that the evidence demands the existence of God.

 

[jreelawg]

It seams few people stay logical when they have a belief to defend, or a bone to pick.

I agree that terms need to be defined, especially the term God, before you can make logical arguments about the term.

Here is the apple definition of the word God.

God |gäd|
noun
1 [without article ] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2 ( god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity : a moon god | an incarnation of the god Vishnu.
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
• used as a conventional personification of fate : he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once.
3 ( god) an adored, admired, or influential person : he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god.
• a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god : don't make money your god.
4 ( the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.
• the people sitting in this area.

If I choose, 3, would you believe they exist. Do images or idols, or animals get worshiped by some? Even if you choose 1 (about monotheistic religions), there is a whole lot left undefined, much of which is probably hardly agreed upon.

 

[physlover1]

you all wrong
god is allah who creat this universe
who creat us
all of you are Physicist
and Physicists are known as intelligent
so let's think about it
who creat you?
who Who raised the sky?
Who gave you the mind and please you than the other creatures?
Of course the answer is allah
Not then understand?
just think about it and don't be crazy
I swear that none of you don't feel comfortable in your religion
try to say it I bear witness that no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God and you will see what will happen?
-------------
i hope that no one get angry with me
I speak quietly and i just wish to all of you goodness

 

[cronxeh]

you all wrong
god is allah who creat this universe
who creat us
all of you are Physicist
and Physicists are known as intelligent
so let's think about it
who creat you?
who Who raised the sky?
Who gave you the mind and please you than the other creatures?
Of course the answer is allah
Not then understand?
just think about it and don't be crazy
I swear that none of you don't feel comfortable in your religion
try to say it I bear witness that no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of God and you will see what will happen?
-------------
i hope that no one get angry with me
I speak quietly and i just wish to all of you goodness

I am very comfortable being an Atheist, because I honestly and with every fiber of my being believe that 90%+ of the population on this planet suffer from one or another form of delusion, mass hysteria and conversion disorder known as religion. They've created this social construct known as 'god' because they feel compelled to fill in the void in their own empty pathetic lives, they are incapable of enjoying what they have and their inner greed reaches out beyond the void.

 

[physlover1]

I am very comfortable being an Atheist, because I honestly and with every fiber of my being believe that 90%+ of the population on this planet suffer from one or another form of delusion, mass hysteria and conversion disorder known as religion. They've created this social construct known as 'god' because they feel compelled to fill in the void in their own empty pathetic lives, they are incapable of enjoying what they have and their inner greed reaches out beyond the void.

we aren't compelled
i want to ask you a Question
What do you believe in?
who creat you human
or you came out of nowhere
let's discuss this a bit and see who will win
i will not Impose you in any thing
i just want you to To think carefully and mind

 

[cronxeh]

we aren't compelled
i want to ask you a Question
What do you believe in?
who creat you human
or you came out of nowhere
let's discuss this a bit and see who will win
i will not Impose you in any thing
i just want you to To think carefully and mind

My parents created me. Perhaps there was alcohol involved, I don't know.

 

[DaveC426913]

i want to ask you a Question
What do you believe in?

That is an excellent, excellent question.

And it is a perfect debate ender.

Beliefs do not need to be defended and they do not need to be challenged and they do not need to be forced onto others. They are personal and private.

You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Is there a reason why we need to be at odds over it?

 

[physlover1]

My parents created me. Perhaps there was alcohol involved, I don't know.

good i will tell you who created your parents?
you will tell me my grandfather and grand mother
if We continue with this approach
We will get in the end to Adam
so The question is who the creation of Adam?

 

[physlover1]

That is an excellent, excellent question.

And it is a perfect debate ender.

Beliefs do not need to be defended and they do not need to be challenged and they do not need to be forced onto others. They are personal and private.

You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. Is there a reason why we need to be at odds over it?

I respect your words my friend
but i don't Forced anyone i just Discuss the issue might be one understand what I'm saying and thinking about it Naturally occurring and well-

 

[DaveC426913]

good i will tell you who created your parents?
you will tell me my grandfather and grand mother
if We continue with this approach
We will get in the end to Adam
so The question is who the creation of Adam?

OK, well I tried. Countdown to thread-locking commencing. 10...

Adam is an allegory, not a real person. We have evdence that shows this.

We were created from proto-primates that were created from ancient mammals that were created from one-celled organisms that were created from enzymes that were ultimately self-forming by the very nature of organic chemistry.

 

[cronxeh]

good i will tell you who created your parents?
you will tell me my grandfather and grand mother
if We continue with this approach
We will get in the end to Adam
so The question is who the creation of Adam?

This is where your delusion kicks in. You read a novel and you take it to be non-fiction, but it is yet another social construct. The real question is, what is it that makes you seek this comfort of heaven and hell, pleasing the alpha male like god in order to get his favors? Are you a weak man? Are you, perhaps, nothing without your precious religion?

 

[DaveC426913]

but i don't Forced anyone i just Discuss the issue

Then you might not want to start off with "you all wrong".

...9...

 

[physlover1]

This is where your delusion kicks in. You read a novel and you take it to be non-fiction, but it is yet another social construct. The real question is, what is it that makes you seek this comfort of heaven and hell, pleasing the alpha male like god in order to get his favors? Are you a weak man? Are you, perhaps, nothing without your precious religion?

this is not delusion
and why you looking at it as a weak man?!
this is not weak
allah creat us and he Deserve Worship
and you don't do that for nothing
he will Rewards you by Admits you to Heaven
Minimum is no thing but the Afterlife is Immortality

 

[cronxeh]

this is not delusion
and why you looking at it as a weak man?!
this is not weak
allah creat us and he Deserve Worship
and you don't do that for nothing
he will Rewards you by Admits you to Heaven
Minimum is no thing but the Afterlife is Immortality

Your greed for more than what you have or deserve is the reason for my contempt for religion.

 

[physlover1]

Then you might not want to start off with "you all wrong".

...9...

ok I'm sorry about that
but why do you want to close the topic?
we are Talking quietly don't Affect

 

[physlover1]

Your greed for more than what you have or deserve is the reason for my contempt for religion.

where is that greed?
you do what you have to do and allah Rewards that for you

 

[DaveC426913]

ok I'm sorry about that
but why do you want to close the topic?
we are Talking quietly don't Affect

This is a science forum. There are places to discuss religious beliefs, this is not one of them. Here's why:

When you make a statement like this: "allah creat us and he Deserve Worship" you must back it up, or you must retract it.

It specifically violates PF rules:

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.

Your statements presume Allah to exist. We do not accept that until you show us logically that it is so. None of your following statements (for example: "...allah Rewards that for you...") can be made at all until you prove that first case.

...8...

 

[cronxeh]

where is that greed?
you do what you have to do and allah Rewards that for you

Wrong. You do these things because you expect a reward. Billions of dollars in the hands of the Church, the land they occupy, the agenda they spread, the taxes they don't pay, and the influence both political and international, scandals, manipulations, and ultimately greed that they spread is the definition of 'evil' on this planet.

The extremists and other primates running around with their own socio-political agenda are also motivated by greed for more attention, for recognition, and as of late for the opportunity to keep breathing and spelunking in Afghanistan.

Please get a clue, its not so complicated.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wrong. You do these things because you expect a reward. Billions of dollars in the hands of the Church, the land they occupy, the agenda they spread, the taxes they don't pay, and the influence both political and international, scandals, manipulations, and ultimately greed that they spread is the definition of 'evil' on this planet.

Personally I think, rather than debunking PhysLover1's claims, you are validating them. If you simply counter his personal beliefs with your own, then you are implicitly granting that it is an even playing field, where - supposedly - both sides have a right to their beliefs.

Remove the personal stances, stick with the logic of debate. This is the "high road" of the Scientific Method, and it is the playing field where PhysLover1 will not be able to sneak his beliefs in.

 

[cronxeh]

Personally I think, rather than debunking PhysLover1's claims, you are validating them. If you simply counter his personal beliefs with your own, then you are implicitly granting that it is an even playing field, where - supposedly - both sides have a right to their beliefs.

Remove the personal stances, stick with the logic of debate. This is the "high road" of the Scientific Method, and it is the playing field where PhysLover1 will not be able to sneak his beliefs in.

That is the problem with religion. It is so cleverly evolved a social construct, it keeps changing and ignoring prior assertions, like a virus. Its hard to avoid, its hard to get rid of and it just infects other ideas like a parasite. There is no way to apply logic against it, no way to reason with it. You just have to be the immovable object against this irresistable force.

 

[physlover1]

i will come back to reply tonight
i have work now
ok see you
---------
anyway
it was nice to talk with you

 

[DaveC426913]

That is the problem with religion. It is so cleverly evolved a social construct, it keeps changing and ignoring prior assertions, like a virus. Its hard to avoid, its hard to get rid of and it just infects other ideas like a parasite. There is no way to apply logic against it, no way to reason with it. You just have to be the immovable object against this irresistable force.

That is not a problem with religion; that is simply a problem with any discussion that revolves around personal beliefs if they are not made in the framework of logical analysis.

The way to prevail in a discussion about personal beliefs is to not reduce yourself to the level of your opponent (or below). When use subjective, emotional judgements like 'virus' and 'parasite', you shoot yourself in the foot. you are paving the way for an invective exchange. PhysLover1 is winning his argument with you because you are effectively losing your temper. Which of the two of you is more sure of himself?

 

[cronxeh]

That is not a problem with religion; that is simply a problem with any discussion that revolves around personal beliefs if they are not made in the framework of logical analysis.

The way to prevail in a discussion about personal beliefs is to not reduce yourself to the level of your opponent (or below). When use subjective, emotional judgements like 'virus' and 'parasite', you shoot yourself in the foot. you are paving the way for an invective exchange. PhysLover1 is winning his argument with you because you are effectively losing your temper. Which of the two of you is more sure of himself?

Yea he is sure of himself for a delusional person. I am pretty calm and collected, and my colour and range of vocabulary words that describe my feelings against religion are what I would call the 'depth' certain wussy Atheists lack.