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

Proofs of a God or no God is pretty much useless?

  1. Oct 11, 2004 #1
    Proofs of a God or no God are pretty much useless?

    I sometimes find myself staring at the absurdity of looking for a proof for the existence of a God, or the proof for the non-existence of one. My logic is pretty simple, say if we say that a orderly universe implies existence of a God, but somehow QM contradicts all that. I think its quite futile, God, I believe is a God of both order and chaos. even if our finite mind can't fanthom how such 2 contradictory entities can co-exist, I believe a mind in a much higher plane can.

    So, I don't think its very fruitful to convince anybody of the existence or non-existence of a God. God encompasses infinity, he/she/it compassess everything. Order is part of the framework of "everything" and so is randomness, good as well as evil. Is my logic flawed around here? even though it goes against the grain of much judeo-christian beliefs.
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 11, 2004 #2
    that is as good a view as one can have. it is all a matter of what the individual wants to believe. within this context, even atheism is part of 'everything'.

    IMHO, this is also the healthiest view since you can use whatever ideas work for you without concern for their source. even a satanist could have a good idea, lol.

    olde drunk
  4. Oct 11, 2004 #3
    Well, it sounds like you are redefining the definition of god. I've never heard god defined the way you do. If one applies a generic, broad definition to god, then it would be easy to prove that the definition exists. Most christians wouldn't likely define god the same way.

    My thing is, one can't use words or proofs to show a god does or doesn't exist. Saying that because something exists implies that a god exists doesn't mean anything, to me. People are arbitraily crediting things that they can't understand to a god, because they don't know how they could arrise any other way. That seems like a shortcut to thinking, and it puts an end to creative thought.

    If a god exists, show me something that directly supports it. Have Angelina Jolie show up at my doorstep and beg me for sex, that would be a true miracle.
  5. Oct 11, 2004 #4
    I think that redefining the definition of God is an almost evolutionary process (give it 250 years before you tell me I'm wrong), English speaking humans aren't going to phase out the word 'God' in a hurry and I think it's going to mean 'something important' for a long time to come.

    For me, everything vaguely tangible falls into that "ordered randomness" (nu-god?) category. I'm talking about absolutely everything:
    The number of asteroids that pass through any 10kilometre cube of space in a year?
    The number of thoughts that each braincell assists before its demise*?

    The ebb and flow of 1 measurement of light as it drifts through space, pushed and dragged by it's other minions of 'bits of light', until it finally fades out into infinity to never be seen again... can be poetically compared to the ebb and flow of the life of a butterfly called George. It's all very predictable but undeniably seemingly random.

    Misogynisticfeminist, the only part of your post that didn't ring true for me was the bit that read "our finite mind can't fathom how such 2 contradictory entities can co-exist, I believe a mind in a much higher plane can."

    Perhaps I've misread you there but I would've said "...in a much higher plane could... IF it existed". I also think that the Einsteins of our race are surprisingly good at fathoming stuff.

    In conclusion, I don't think God's counting the asteroids or the thoughts, He doesn't know, He doesn't think, He only randomly exists at all, and when He doesn't exist, He does it in an orderly fashion.

    *hands up who was thinking, 'but you can't count thoughts'? Well, that's one

  6. Oct 11, 2004 #5
    My understanding of God is similar to Pascal’s. Pascal argued that it is not in human intellectual power to logically prove the existence of God. A divine power can not be fully understood in technical terms or philosophical explanation trapped in the physical world. God is transcendental; he is beyond physicality. Therefore, our logic allows us to reason our way into believing there is an omnipotent power, yet not to actually prove its complete existence. Proofs can help us direct ourselves toward theism – to show us the path. Yet it is not in the power of proofs to guide us through the whole journey of divine understanding. We have been given a mind and a brain. Logic and reason utilizes the brain; divine understanding (or faith) uses the mind. These philosophical proofs are logical, reasonable, and of course useful. They help us understand who we are as part of human civilization and as individual potential saints. Yet they are not perfect. What would make an argument, reasoned by an imperfect human being, perfect? Why should we assume that because an argument is created to prove a Divine power, that it should also be divinely perfect? These arguments for the existence of God are all fallible. We must understand that God gave us the power of faith. Faith requires belief of course, yet the belief of God should not be thought of as a cause of empirical or logical proofs. Belief can be founded on mere recognition of the World’s magnitude and complexity; and that should be enough to grant us faith of an omnipotent and omniscient power.

    No argument for a divine power can ever be universal. A proof produced by an individual’s reason can only be used to prove a divine power to that one person. That is the beauty of faith – it is an individual gift. God allows us to use this faith to prove to ourselves the existence of God; not to others. If we use faith to prove the existence of God to ourselves, it will be an objective logical proof for ourselves. There is no objective logical proof for God which can be understood by everyone. A philosophical argument can help everyone recognize the possibility of a higher power, yet it can not prove the complete existence of this power. Our goal should be to recognize how we can bring about the recognition of this Being, and then build our own faith using our own human reason.
  7. Oct 11, 2004 #6
    Belief in God is a Mental Disorder

    In logic, there is a Argument from Ignorance. Google it, there are plenty of examples. I'll give one in regard to this argument:

    Atheist: A God cannot be proven to exist, therefore there is not a God.

    Theist: A God cannot be proven not to exist, therefore there is a God.

    The basis of the argument is ignorance, so we call the belief or disbelief in God ignorance.

    That's why I call my self a scientist. We talk about what we sense. Believers talk about what they've sensed and has become an imaginative order but claim it's physical existence. Although, they say spiritual, all they've sensed is only physical.
  8. Oct 11, 2004 #7
    Well, if you start saying stuff like God is the randomness or whatever in the universe, then you say god exist. But then creationists, etc, take all that and think that *their* god exists.
  9. Oct 11, 2004 #8
    Quote from Bill Hicks:

    "Ever noticed how people who don't believe in evolution, seem really un-evolved?"
  10. Oct 12, 2004 #9
    Chaos and randomness

    What appears as randomnes or chaos to us may just be a deeper level of order that we fail to see. One could also argue that randomness could be the point of creation.

    Physicist David Bohm talks about the explicate and implicate orders of the universe in his book, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" by David Bohm
  11. Oct 13, 2004 #10
    Is god needed?

    If god moves objects in accordance with newton laws of gravity, it would be redundant and inefficant to say that god is cause of movement. I will instead say that Newton laws of gravity cause movement as it is the simpler solution, as well as being the one I am capable to have a greater understanding, and security in using due to its high accuracy in prediction. ex. If it looks like a duck, and quaks like a duck, then its a duck, not a b-jay in a duck disguise.

    God as defined in Judo Christains text's is very bad at providing usefull pragmatic and accurate solutions to a wide range of problems both physical and "spiritual". Therefore I opt to use a far more statistically more riliable system for generating solutions,.. namely logic.
  12. Oct 14, 2004 #11
    honestly speaking,....i think we are inteh same boat....i follow my religion....but the question of existence have always tortured me....i think having some kind of purpose (as claimed by the religion) is not a satisfactory answer
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Proofs of a God or no God is pretty much useless?
  1. IF God (Replies: 41)

  2. Gods (Replies: 22)

  3. God ! (Replies: 2)