What would be proof that God exists?

  • Thread starter Laser Eyes
  • Start date
  • #176
2
0
Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?
 
  • #177
515
0
kellykea said:
Mk...
i see from some of your posts, that you are a very intellectual person.
i don't mean to question your superior intelligence, but could you possibly answer the following question
"what is the meaning of life?"

Could anyone else have a go at answering that for me?
is it something to do with God?
IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #178
12
0
In response to michelle

Your Definition of God is incomplete.
G- Generator
O- Operator
D- Destroyer
I like the rest of your words. Faith really has no material evidence, but that is the difference between a believer and nonbeliever. A believer won't ask where the God is and will he ever materialize in front of us. May be we certainly cannot prove the existance of God but i don't want to throw the sponge without trying.
 
  • #179
2
0
olde drunk said:
IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.

life is and/or will be what you make it. there are no limitations or idealized purpose.

all wise writings and commandments were meant as guides for enjoying an uncomplicated peaceful life. i view life as a game, a game to be played respectfully.

love&peace,
olde drunk

i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?
 
  • #180
515
0
kellykea said:
i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.
anyone share my opinion?
gee, i never realized the full implications of my comment until you introducted the similarities to sports.

you see, i don't consider us as 'pawns'. the rules we abide by, are only the agreements we have made to be physical (accepting the laws of physics, etc).

freewill allows us to break rules and enjoy the consequences, as with all games. those that are more adventurous can 'play' within the rules and continually stretch them. i enjoy bending and stretching all rules.

my original intent was that we should not take life too seriously and PLAY more. we seem to get caught up in societal input as to what is important, rather than thinking for ourselves and making ouselves happy, first.
what good is it if we satisfy whatever understanding we have of god's intent, our family's, employer, community, etc if we are not happy with what we are doing.

personally, i feel i spent the first 25-30 years addressing what i thought was important and the last 30+ years trying to correct my ideas.

IF, we are happy and love self, then we can love others and life becomes a fancyful game without any losers.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #181
19
0
kellykea said:
i don't really see how life can be considered as a game. all games have a purpose, something to accomplish. I can, i suppose, see why you think it is a game; life has a beggining and an end. like all games. Like a game, life can be short or long. but why would God create us to be pawns in his chess game. games restrict free-will. you have to abide by the set rules. You can't choose a path like you can in life. In a game you only get a set route eg. snakes and ladders, monopoly. personally i dont agree to your statement life is a game.

anyone share my opinion?
I agree with that statement because it would in theory restrict god's gift of free will to us humans. But your statement about god is not valid because god was not part of olde drunk's theory.

olde drunk said:
IMHO, each person has an individual purpose that is not dictated by any god.
 
  • #182
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Ethanol said:
Gokul43201 somewhere said that he was not an atheist.May i ask a question? Why r u so doubtful about the existance of God?
Did I give the impression that I doubt the existence of God ? Surely, I never said this in words.

But that does not mean I won't object to the so called "scientific arguments" that are really ignorant concoctions of the scientifically uneducated. Moreover, they only weaken the argument for the existence of God, so I don't see why all the believers give such people a free reign, when they are really doing a disservice to the faith.

Finally, I must admit that I do doubt the existence of God. This is not to say that I'm convinced of His non-existence...but until something happens to change my opinion one way or the other, I will remain open.

Okay, now I've said it in words, but not before now.
 
  • #183
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul
 
  • #184
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,738
785
Gokul43201 said:
michelle s,

I think you're looking for 'bases' which is the plural of 'basis'.

Gokul
Yes, Michele said
"Faith" is one of the main basis' of the christian religion.
In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity"


If one has a deep reverence for nature and the physical universe then I suppose that the Christian and Mohammedan idea of Jehovah or whatever it is may seem somehow disrespectful, frivolous, even in a certain way blasphemous, I guess.
I am getting a bit discouraged by all this Fundamental religiosity among Bible-thumping Christian and Koran-thumping Muslim.
I wish people could just try to respect and honor the world without thinking they must tell each other exactly who should get the credit for making it.
 
  • #185
19
0
marcus said:
In English the apostrophe is not used to form the plural. Isnt that true?
I'm no great shakes on grammar or spelling for that matter.
One says that something has three baSEEZ (spelled bases) instead of
three baSISSes. It does seem to sound better, to say "one of the main bases of Christianity".
I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...
 
  • #186
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,738
785
michelle s said:
I am sorry! I really do apologize!

I shall bear that in mind for future reference...
dont feel bad, no problemo
I did not mean any severe criticism! I make all kinds of
grammar and spelling mistakes myself, constantly and without regret,
but also do not mind being corrected

Maybe we just need to make little perfunctory efforts at correct English
now and then to remind ourselves that it does have rules
above and beyond sheer habit, or so I sometimes think.

BTW michelle, I just came here by accident and was curious about the topic of discussion

It would seem more natural to me to turn the question around and say

"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"

You would formulate some kind of Supernatural Being Hypothesis (it would probably need to be more definite than simply saying "God exists" but anyway some precise version of that)
and then you would derive predictions from that hypothesis, which would follow if the hypothesis is true. and then you would check to see if
these predictions are born out by observation.
 
  • #187
19
0
marcus said:
"what evidence would show that the assumption of some sort of supernatural divine power is FALSE?"
i agree it would be a much better way to phrase the question. :wink:
 
  • #188
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...
 
  • #189
187
0
A God That Makes Sense

All humans have five senses. Three are vision, sound and touch. The other two are chemical: smell and taste. Humans may only have thought one way and that is through the five senses. All thoughts represent one or more of the five senses. All senses represent something in the objective environment.

There is no thought on something that may not be sensed, unless it is a thought created by the mind that is simply a reordering of one or more of the five senses that represent empirical sense. For example, a fiction novel is a taxification only of the five senses, but is a order that represents a fantasitic order of the five senses. Another important detail is that each word summons different images and magnitudes of the images of the words of a novel, so everyone sees a similar (because of common language) but different story based upon form of the commonly sensed image and the intensity of the particular image. Just think about the possibilities of what the term God evokes accross humankind. One, the personal word value of each individual, and two, the form of the theories presented over time that build the concept, oh yeah, the personal reordering has an impact too based upon the determination of their mind.

Every element of thought you have is based upon something you have experienced in the environment. It is a memory only. And again, when it represents something that doesn't exist, it's simply those memories put in another order that wasn't experienced.

God is mixture of elements you have experienced in you life. All the elements have been experienced by you. But the order is something you have not experienced.

God is a fantastic theory, but represents nothing we sense, except the elements that make up the concept.

So, when you can present to me a God that may be sensed by my five senses, instead of a God that is only known by a fantastic theory which is merely a reordering of thoughts of empirically sensed things, then I will not believe in God, I will know God.

Do you have the force to summon the master? :biggrin:
 
  • #190
515
0
OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism???

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk
 
  • #191
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.
 
  • #192
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,738
785
Gokul43201 said:
There's always the "If God exists, and He can do anything, then can He make a rock so heavy that He can't lift it ?" kind of paradox - and many more - that fit the bill. But of course, that's only a logic argument, not a desciption of evidence.

On the other hand if you hypothsize the existence of something that does not interact with us, the observers, in any way, is it meaningful to talk about such a something ? The counter-argument could be that it interacts with us, only after we are dead, or some such thing...
Gokul we must try to do better than the business with the rock.

I have constructed two divinity-hypotheses that might be testable (that is falsifiable by observation). I do not have much hope that they are testable---that either could actually serve as a basis for making predictions which could be checked. But I'll put them out to examine, just in case someone might see how to test one of them.

A. the manipulative alien with intentions

At the present time there is a powerful alien able to manipulate events in the universe so that things happen which do not follow from the laws of probability and physics. Not infrequently, things happen that we wouldnt expect simply from natural laws, and this shows the alien's intentions.

B. the non-interfering designer

An alien intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion according to plan. The alien who did this is no longer in evidence and does not intervene----indeed may no longer be around or be interested. But the creation goes on working as designed.

Probably everybody (atheist and theologian alike) would be happy if we could disprove hypotheses A and B! they do not sound very nice. If everybody dislikes them, then why shouldnt we be able to disprove them scientifically?

But to disprove them we would first need to derive predictions from them about some future observation or measurement! I do not see how to do this.

Perhaps somebody else will come up with a more predictive hypothesis of this sort
 
Last edited:
  • #193
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
My sister once came up with the theory that Jesus Christ was really an alien. Was quite interesting, I thought.

Oops, have I just blasphemed ?

And yeah, the rock thing doesn't go far...but I've really not heard a response to that from a believer, and I'm curious what they'd say !
 
  • #194
187
0
olde drunk said:
OMNI - can you 'know' magnetism with your senses? NO! you can witness the effects of magnetism. you also witness the effects of god. life is that effect.

so, you can take all the chemicals and all the sources of energy and use all the scientists in the world and you will not create 'life'. so, is the concept of god any more difficult to accept than magnetism???

the problem that i see is that we get lost with the traditional definitions. i don't care what god is or isn't, in this area of discussion. but i do believe that there is a 'something' that creates life or provides the life force. using the term god is simply for easy of communication.

love&peace,
olde drunk
In logic, there is denotation and connotation. That's it. Denotation represents a symbol which represent something physically existing as a whole and connotation represents a part or aspect of that. Connotation may also abstract things which means multiply or divide them and form a 'idea concept' or mix and match of that aspect. God is a mix and multiply of real things sensed (connotations).

Gravity is still sensed, even if it's just a property which is understood through displacement. It exists, even if I only see a property, rather than what I believe may be something else to it, but havn't sensed. I have only sensed the elements that makes up the idea God, not the picture that the elements form. The difference is gravity is obviously a objectively sensed thing, but God is only a subjectively sensed thing formed out of objective elements. They are not equally believable or knowable. I know gravity of what I've sensed. I used to believe in God, but know science does not allow me to believe things I think over empirically.

Determination is creation said in a more accurate way. Creation assumes time travel may occur in the mind in the smallest of moments. We are who we are and we cannot change a thing. We say we make choices out of convience for language, but we really, really don't mean it. We are not really stopping the flow of physics, then deciding. The flow is stopping us and deciding for us. We don't decide the flow.

We watch ourselves unfold in this life. We watch ourselves born once. We watch ourselves exist in one place at a time the whole time we are here in human life. We watch ourselves make only one choice at a time (never two and never no choice, because Rush already convinced me that is a choice too). Then we watch ourselves die, one death, one second at at time.

If you are not the only one of you, one minute at a time, then who else are you?

There can only be one. -Highlander :wink:
 
  • #195
187
0
Gokul43201 said:
All of current string theory or any theoretical high energy physics is really about things that have never been sensed and probably won't be, for many years to come.
It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully. To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.

There is probably more to this...
 
  • #196
12
0
Rock?

Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert. Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that gonna question His authority. I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.
 
  • #197
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
omin said:
It's amazing. The physics forums on this site has a few people, (although fully knowledged in facts and said theories) who still don't get Newtons laws fully.
How does your argument make use of Newton's Laws ? Yes, I think there are people that don't get Newton's Laws...

To sense anything requires a chain reaction of physically existing things touching each other along that chain at some point.
"Touching" ? If you wish to use words with non-standard connotations, perhaps you should define them. Maybe an example would help.

I don't know anything about string theory, but I can say this about it confidently as a criteria before I do study it at some time. If string theory is not just pure imagination, but derived from things that do exist, then we have sensed whatever it represents indirectly, if it only be through instruments or extended physical mathematics of some sort. Sensing properties of existing things indirectly means they do exist.
If using some consistent framework of rules amounts to 'indirectly sensing', then yes, string theories make use of indirect sense.

You speak of the existence of "pure imagination." Can you provide an example of pure imagination ?
 
  • #198
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Ethanol said:
Gokul , i read that rock thing of yours. It's very funny, I thought that u were sensible and a powerful rival to convert.
Sensible, I like to think of myself as. Powerful - no ...I'm not especially fond of being powerful.

Surely God can do anything but if He makes a rock so heavy that even he can't lift isn't that gonna question His authority.
The question may seem silly and laughable...but it is for exactly this reason (that you've provided responses which do not answer the question) that I brought it up. God does not have to demonstrate this task to all the people lest they question His authority. Simply for His own amusement, can He or can He not do it ? That's different from whether He chooses to.

Let's stick to the question.

I think a universe and so called parallel universes were big enough rock and He lifts them all fine enough.
So does that mean He has not the ability to control the size of the Universe ? But if He can, you still have not aswered whether He can make the rock big enough to satisfy the second condition.

All I'm saying is that assumption of the 'ability to do anything' leads to logical inconsistencies.
 
  • #199
94
0
Blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?
 
  • #200
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
dschouten said:
Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. Blah blah blah-blah, blah; blah blah!

Blah?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :biggrin:
 

Related Threads on What would be proof that God exists?

  • Last Post
18
Replies
444
Views
32K
Replies
222
Views
13K
  • Last Post
14
Replies
338
Views
21K
Replies
83
Views
6K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
255
Views
24K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
100
Views
10K
Top