Is There Proof That God Exists?

[FZ+]

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?

It is not necessary for me, as an entity, but it is necessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument.

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.

And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.

Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.

Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church.

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning."

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church.

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning."

Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

It is not necessary for me, as an entity, but it is necessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument. And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

It seems by your statement that you believe in that archaic theory of life arising out of decaying matter. If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness. But with the background radiation, the origin of the universe can be said to have occurred at a point in time. Either everything appeared by itself or by an unseen hand. Only I know the answer to that one.

Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

 

[FZ+]

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.

I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a necessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.

You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

The alternative is that God was always there.

But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness.

Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?

That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

Please allow me try to simplify your statement above.

Some people who are believers in your perspective become robots and follow each other in line, ergo if you believe you are a robot and without freewill but if you are a skeptic you are absolutely correct.

Nothing is black and white. There are shades of gray. At least it is as we assume it to be.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a necessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

There is a logic of language and a logic of mathematics. The former is supple and lifelike, it follows our experience. The latter is abstract and rigid, more ideal. The latter is perfectly necessary, perfectly reliable: the former is only sometimes reliable and hardly ever systematic. But the logic of mathematics achieves necessity at the expense of living truth, it is less real than the other, although more certain. It achieves certainty by a flight from the concrete into abstraction. Doubtless, to an idealist, this would seem to be a more perfect reality. I am not an idealist. The logic of the poet—that is, the logic of language or the experience itself—develops the way a living organism grows: it spreads out towards what it loves, and is heliotropic, like a plant. There is no logical reason for superior or inferior causes for any intelligence or for the knowledge of a Creator.

You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

Unless you assert a priori.

The alternative is that God was always there. But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

What you choose to call "IT" is meaningless. The term 'hand' is for our feeble minds ot comprehend the incomprehesible and have something to visualize which cannot be visualized. There are no describable attributes to describe an unknowable essence. No one has claimed that they have found the infinite as my previous reply was facetious.

Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

Light years is also a measure of the "TIME' that light photons travel in one year. I am saying that any concept of an always existing universe has a probablity of -0.

That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

You are making the circular arguements. ∑ = ∞ + ∫א

Only the human mind invalidates what it cannot understand or comprehend. A little glimpse of the incomprehensible.

http://evidence1.homestead.com/ProofLife.html

 

[Visitor]

The answer is simple, there is none.

Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.


He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you?

 

[phoenixthoth]

that's precisely why i think there is no proof. it does seem that an omnipotent being could snap its fingers and make you believe it is God though but that's what you call a false conviction, right?

to me, the explanation for there being no proof is that this is how free will is built into the universe. we are all free to believe, or not, apparently at our discretion.

 

[Jonh Doe]

Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

I approve. (I could say why I approve, but I saw on another forum that it was forbidden on Physics Forums to have religious talks about God.)

 

[Visitor]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.


He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you?

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

 

[Jonh Doe]

I think it would be easy enough for god to prove to you he is actually god. Just tell him what you would think is absolutely impossible (example: pop a planet out of nowhere, go at the speed of light, take a rabbit out a truly empty hat, ect... (you get my point)), and have him do it. I he can, then he is truly god. Otherwise, he is an impostor. Not to forget that the concept of god is that he is all-powerful.

If you still refuse to believe after this, then it is you that is stuck on your idea, and nothing could make you believe, just as some people still think fire does not burn after they have been burnt. What could I say more?!?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if anyone of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first...

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

 

[Visitor]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if anyone of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first...

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Rader
Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?

What other churches are you referring to?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance...

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

 

[Rader]

robots

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What other churches are you referring to?

All of them. So cough it up what is meant by your statement?

 

[Rader]

Intellegent Design

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance...

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.

The question then becomes whether the forest has always been there so that all those pocket watches could appear after a million monkeys over tens of billions of years accidentally made those irreducibly complex pocket watches.

No chaos, no creation. Evidence: the kitchen at mealtime.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.

The question then becomes whether the forest has always been there so that all those pocket watches could appear after a million monkeys over tens of billions of years accidentally made those irreducibly complex pocket watches.

In answer to your question. Everything always was there, how else could you find those irreducibly complex pocket watches?

More important why would a forest want to leave a trail of evidence of irreducibly complex pocket watches?

The question at hand in this thread is, is there a ? or is there not a ?.

Its not the irreducibly complex pocket watches, that answer the above question. Its there placement on the trail. For if we were not consciously aware of what, a irreducibly complex pocket watch was, it would be the same as a rock, we might not notice there was anything at all.

 

[Visitor]

Would God make a pocket watch that HAD screws to fall out? (that was an analogy by the way referring to the fact that EVERYTHING, no matter how complex, is deeply flawed. In fact, the greater the complexity, they more numerous the flaws.)

 

[pallidin]

I'll take a stab at this.

Since I assume that all of us here are humans, I suppose my opinion is as right or wrong as anyone else's.

I have never seen, heard or otherwise experienced God in any way that I could share with others because, for me, it has never happened.
Furthermore, I have never experienced a dramatic paranormal event(such as a ghost, demon, household objects flying around, etc...) that might cause me to consider.
Well, there was one event. About 10 years ago I helped this old lady with some chores and refused to be paid. Not sure why, but I just felt like doing it. When I got back home there was a strong odor of roses in my house. No-one was there previous to me as I lived alone at that time. That was weird, and I must admit I think of it from time-to-time.
Anyway, apart from that I suppose I have not had any unsual situations which would lead me to believe in a "spiritual" component to reality.
Even still, I do believe in a God. Why? I don't know. It's just an impression I have without any proof.
Scientifically I have thought about it and have reached certain suppositions: a) If dimensions above the 4th exist, I do not see it as all that improbable that "life" in those dimensions exist, and "intelligent" life as well. b) In nature, we often see a "hierarchael" order, either establised or struggled towards. So, I suppose there might be "leaders" in those "other dimensions" if they exist as stated. c) For some reason(probably wrong), I have always felt that the very fact that anything exists at all is rather strange, as it would seem that the perfect scientific scenario for reality is that nothing at all should exist. After all, that concept entirely validates itself. Yet, here we are.

Anywhoes, just my meager thoughts.

 

[FZ+]

There is no logical reason for superior or inferior causes for any intelligence or for the knowledge of a Creator.

Precisely! Hence, no proof for God.

Unless you assert a priori.

It is not a matter of assertion. The two statements: God came into existence in the abscence of all else, and Nothing can come into existence by itself, are directly contradictory. Pick one, don't pick both.

The term 'hand' is for our feeble minds ot comprehend the incomprehesible and have something to visualize which cannot be visualized.

Incomprehensible? But everything is incomprehensible! Even in our most optimistic theories of everything, we can not know an entity is its entirity. In quantum physics, our knowledge is limited purely to a matter of inputs, and outputs. Things are defined in terms of their effects, defined by us. An unknowable, indescribable idea is a philosophical waste of time.

Light years is also a measure of the "TIME' that light photons travel in one year. I am saying that any concept of an always existing universe has a probablity of -0.

No it aint. Photons do not experience time. I think you are digging a hole for yourself...

You are making the circular arguements.

While you are making no sense at all.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance...

This is an interesting argument. The pocket watch WAS created by pure chance. Pure chance created its makers. Pure chance produced the design within their imagination. Pure chance led to the accretion of scientific knowledge that made watchmaking possible. Pure chance was the motion of air particles the produced the forging fire. Pure chance of photon emmissions is what keeps the matter together. Pure chance of potential energy makes it hold good time, and makes the spring reliable. Pure chance of the maker's memory removed the scaffords, pared down redundancies in the design, the clamps etc, to leave an appearance of irreducible complexity. Pure chance left it in the forest, where you came upon it - by pure chance.

Lesson? Don't underestimate chance.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

The question at hand in this thread is, is there a ? or is there not a ?.

The answer at hand in this thread is: ‡” = ?/?? X 45

Its not the irreducibly complex pocket watches, that answer the above question. Its there placement on the trail. For if we were not consciously aware of what, a irreducibly complex pocket watch was, it would be the same as a rock, we might not notice there was anything at all.

Oh but consciousness is able to differentiate between a rock and hard pocket watch. Not only is consciousness aware of the pocket watch but the fact that without the second hand, the watch would serve the same function as the rock. As a paper weight...

But the fact remains, in the beginning there was nothing that became so complex as to be beyond the realm of probability that chaos becomes order without an unseen force.

 

[TENYEARS]

FZ, what are you afraid of? Over a decade ago I saw the living god not a vision or in the sky, but the god of all gods. It leaves you with two options to believe I am a liar or mad or is there another explanation? God is a scary experience, the unknown. Leave your fear and go forward, you will find things you cannot beleive, you will do things you cannot believe.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Precisely! Hence, no proof for God.

Like in any trial in every courthouse in this country, circumstantial evidence plus more of the same times a trillion becomes primae facea proof of the existence of a reality. That circumstantial element being a Creator as proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

It is not a matter of assertion. The two statements: God came into existence in the absence of all else, and Nothing can come into existence by itself, are directly contradictory. Pick one, don't pick both.

Why do find these two statements contradictory when both are unparalleled in parity? You seem to be ignoring the concept of a Prime force in timelessness and in a dimension in a void. But you are arguing from your finite logic which is subsequent to the creation of things.

Incomprehensible? But everything is incomprehensible! Even in our most optimistic theories of everything, we can not know an entity is its entirity. In quantum physics, our knowledge is limited purely to a matter of inputs, and outputs. Things are defined in terms of their effects, defined by us. An unknowable, indescribable idea is a philosophical waste of time.

Checkmate... Perfect

No it aint. Photons do not experience time. I think you are digging a hole for yourself...

Have you ever been a photon? Are you speaking subjectively about the life and times of a photon? How do you feel down there in the bottom of that deep hole in which you find yourself?

While you are making no sense at all. <>

Well said...

This is an interesting argument. The pocket watch WAS created by pure chance. Pure chance created its makers. Pure chance produced the design within their imagination. Pure chance led to the accretion of scientific knowledge that made watchmaking possible. Pure chance was the motion of air particles the produced the forging fire. Pure chance of photon emmissions is what keeps the matter together. Pure chance of potential energy makes it hold good time, and makes the spring reliable. Pure chance of the maker's memory removed the scaffords, pared down redundancies in the design, the clamps etc, to leave an appearance of irreducible complexity. Pure chance left it in the forest, where you came upon it - by pure chance.

Helloooooooooooo down there. How much time and how many monkeys did it take for all that pure chance to follow your perfect chain of events to occur without one of those links missing, out of place or simply flawed?

Lesson? Don't underestimate chance.

Chances are that chances are you are here...

 

[ahrkron]

My two cents,

I have often seen variants of the pocket watch argument. In essence, what religious people say is that the universe is "so perfect" that it had to be made by an intelligent agent.

This is, however, a selfish view of things, since it assumes that our own existence is somehow especial. "In order for the universe to create us", they say, "things had to work exactly as they are".

This may sound good, but it is a non-sequitur.

It can be the case that the universe goes on doing its thing, its size and laws allowing (or, rather, implying) the development of some locally stable domains.

Think of it as a swimming pool with lots of whirlpools. Some of them disappear too quickly to allow any further substructures to develop, but some (the really stable ones) keep their general shape long enough for smaller whirlpools to appear within them. If some of the smaller ones are capable of self-replicating, they will rather soon dominate the scene of the stable whirlpool.

Then, if this small, self-replicating, whirlpools develop the ability of asking things, the could start deluding themselves into thinking that the whole universe was set up precisely for them to exist

"Otherwise, why would we exist in a stable big whirlpool?"

You would'n be asking anything if your planet was not a stable structure,

"Why then is it that all natural constants are tuned so perfectly for us to exist"

They are't tuned. If they were different, a different kind of life and intelligence would have asked the question.

"Why is my whirlpool so beautiful?"

Your word for "beautiful" (and all other "nice" words) can only refer to what you see. It can only refer to the only reality you know.

As with evolution, it is not pure chance, but complexity plus dynamically stable (and, in a way, unavoidable) configurations.

 

[FZ+]

Like in any trial in every courthouse in this country, circumstantial evidence plus more of the same times a trillion becomes primae facea proof of the existence of a reality. That circumstantial element being a Creator as proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Really.

You seem to be ignoring the concept of a Prime force in timelessness and in a dimension in a void.

So then, it IS possible for something to appear out of nothing, so long as it follows certain guidelines. And so, the argument is invalid. Before you start criticising logic itself, note that the argument we are talking about has also been constructed in the same sort of logic. Hypocrisy is such an ugly thing...

Have you ever been a photon? Are you speaking subjectively about the life and times of a photon? How do you feel down there in the bottom of that deep hole in which you find yourself?

I am talking about the scientific definition of photons, plus the well confirmed conclusions of special relativity. Go ask Einstein.

Helloooooooooooo down there. How much time and how many monkeys did it take for all that pure chance to follow your perfect chain of events to occur without one of those links missing, out of place or simply flawed?

So now, we pit intuition, against the fact that it has actually happened.

As in all evolutionary events, it is hard to characterise a definite beginning, and to be true to the classic monkey-keyboard, it is hard to define a set population. All in all, it took about 2000 years for the knowledge and design to appear randomly by chance discoveries. And as for monkeys, we will have to include the huamn population through that time, all of whom could have made a contribution. Important contributions were made by monkeys such as Leonardo Da Vinci, and so on. The fact of it was that through the watch's development, there was never a goal to aim for, there was never a single intent, and there is no sign of predestination. Ideas popped up, and were weeded out - just as in evolution.

FZ, what are you afraid of?

That is a question you need to ask yourself. I have observed your posting habits - and my observations are not good. Why do you only ever dip into offer obscure, and usually irrelevant arguments? Why do you cloud yourself in vagueness? Why is it that the only time you made a clear statement was when you were talking about stellar mechanics, and were talking completely contrary to observed facts? Don't confuse ignorance with profundity.