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

Whats the proof that god exists?

  1. Oct 17, 2003 #1
    whats the proof of existence of god?How can anyone believe?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 17, 2003 #2
    There is no proof of God, and people believe because human minds are capable of doing such.
     
  4. Oct 17, 2003 #3
    God can not be proven. No one can prove to you or anyone else that God does or does not exist. We experience God within ourselves and know God and know that he exists. It is beyond belief and beyond what is normally thought of as faith. Once God is experienced within ourselves there is no longer any need for proof.
    The way this has happened to a number of us is through meditation and acceptance and asking while meditating.
     
  5. Oct 19, 2003 #4
    god "existence" is dangerous

    How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists?
    Generally speaking, human feelings can "cheat", right?
    Say, you could had been "drugged" when you experienced "a connection with the god", isn't it so?

    PREVIOUSLY people "needed" a god in order to survive (just "to keep together"), that is it.
    For NOW people DO NOT NEED god.
    Moreover, "idea of god" is DANGEROUS for human race.

    Because of "whose god is better" arguing
    (which cannot be solved because is based on irrational "feelings")
    our poor mankind can commit suicide using NEWLY introduced weapons of mass destruction.

    So, even IF "a god" exists, people MUST "prove" to themselves, that no any god exists and QUICKLY!

    P.S.
    "Morality" CAN be explained without references to any god, do you know that?
     
  6. Oct 19, 2003 #5
    I used to believe in the existence of a creator until a week or so. Not the God of the Bible, the Allah of Koran, Yaveh or other name that you please, but some kind of mad scientist that is experimenting with our universe. Of course that I didn't believe in life after death, reencarnation or other histories. But then I thought: if there's a creator, who created him/her? Another creator evidently. And to this creator? Another. And so indefinitely. For me, this infinite ladder of creators is absurd, so I prefer to believe that there's no creator
     
  7. Oct 20, 2003 #6

    goo

    User Avatar

    if there's no god, he would have to be invented
     
  8. Oct 20, 2003 #7
    Why do you need proof? He either is or He isn't. If He is then we should inherently know this. But then again if we don't, perhaps it's because we've taken someone else's word for it? :wink: Hmm ... Hey, don't look at me man!
     
  9. Oct 25, 2003 #8
  10. Oct 27, 2003 #9
    The "infinite ladder" that meteor posted is no more absurd than the infinite ladder that created matter and life.
    If you call the idea of God absurd, you're pretty much calling the idea of the Big Bang, ect. absurd also.

    Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.
     
  11. Oct 28, 2003 #10
    Well put photon.

    If proof is still needed, the fact that you exist and can ask; "Does God exist?" should be proof enough. Taken back as far as you want or to whatever level you want the universe is so ordered and its properties so exact, the chain of events that led to first life and then us much less the existence of the universe as it is so improbable that it seems to demand a logical reasoning mind beyond our comprehention to make it happen just the way it is and keep it just the way it is so that life at least on earth can flourish. It is all too perfect, too exact, too improbable to be an accident or to happen by chance alone. God is. By whatever name you want to call him or however you want to conceptulize the creator and maintainer of the universe or the universe itself, it is. It is God.
     
  12. Oct 28, 2003 #11

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    I would have thought that most religions name chance as God.

    In either case, I think you underestimate chance's abilities... And left out the reason why - why do you think it all had to turn out this way?
     
  13. Oct 28, 2003 #12
    "What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any
    differently; in other words, whether the demand for logical simplicity leaves
    any freedom at all." -Albert Einstein
     
  14. Oct 28, 2003 #13
    Hang on, before we talk about the existence of "god", we had better define "god".

    Otherwise we are guilty of setting up the proverbial straw man.

    So it is necessary to read the bible and work out what the prophets are meaning when they use the word "god".

    Do not undersetimate the craftiness of the prophets.

    A little piece of advice - if you are reading the bible and it is making no sense, then perhaps you are holding the book upside down. If you conclude that the bible is stupid, then maybe it is acting as a mirror on you.
     
  15. Oct 29, 2003 #14
    Late night I watched NOVA on a PBS channel. The program was The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene, the author of the book of the same title and host for NOVA said that ther are about 16(?) numbers that are critical. If any one of them changed value even minutely the universe would no longer exist as we know and love it. The value of these parameters are exactly the value that they need to be in order for the universe to exist as it it. If that is not enought then how many events had to happen just the way that they did when they did for life to emerge in the universe.
    Then multiply those astronmomical odds agains life on earth developing into intelligent self aware beings, us; and, it is thought that we as a species nearly went extinct. At one time it is estimated that our population was down to less than 10,000 worldwide.
    No I am not underestimating the power of chance. I realize that given an infinite amount of time and and infinite amoiut of space anything and everything possible however remote or unlikely will happen. However according to the BB and a number of physists the universe is not infinite but finite in both space and time.
    It is all but impossible to realize how unlikely and event that the universe is much less how unlikely you and I are. How precise the parameters have to be for the universe to come about in the first place and then maintain and evolve itself into its present state.
    Sure its possoble but it is far more likely as impossible as it may seem to some that the laws and parameters and universe were created
    by a supermind some call God.
    Why? I don't know unless it was to experience itself and evolve itself and to be aware of itself.
    It has been said that the material universe was created so that newly created souls would have a place to stand and live and grow. But then why were the souls created? Maybe it is its way to procreate or evolve itself as I said.
     
  16. Oct 29, 2003 #15
    You are defining your own god, then going into lengthy discussion about whether this god exists or not.

    Can you not see that you are making a big ERROR?

    You are still assuming that god is some kind of universal intelligence.

    This is not the god of the bible.

    If you want to find out about the god of the bible, then read the bible. This may take some effort. If you don't have the time, then keep on making up your own definitions and speculating on their validity. But I will not participate in such FOOLISHNESS.
     
  17. Oct 30, 2003 #16
    Bariyon, I disagree that God is not the universal conscious or ultimate super mind. It is the God of the bible but beyound the bible and viewed a different way. It is just another facet of the One God of which we are all part of and of which he is.
    My views are based on my Judeo-Christian upbringing and my study of mainly Buddhism and Zen. It is not so much that I am defining my own God as my God is defining himself to me in his many different aspects.
    This is a result of many years of meditation and study. Either that or I am far mor psychotic and deluded than I think that I am. I am not the only one who has seen these things nor am I the only one to have said or written them. I am therefore not alone in my psychosis or delusion or in the truth and reality if that is what it is.
    It is foolish to call someone else's opinion or view foolish simply because they don't coincide with yours.
     
  18. Nov 1, 2003 #17
    Royce,
    I think I am making the same point that you have already made.
    God is not something that is separate from us. If we think that god is some sort of objectively separate entity, then we are misleading ourselves from the outset.
    Yet in another sense, I see no reason why god cannot be described by a physics theory. It's just that a theory of god and the experience of god are two quite different things.
    So this would be a proof of god, that is, the nature of reality that lies beyond our everyday experience.
     
  19. Nov 2, 2003 #18
    Bariyon,
    It is my understanding that for God to be described by a physics experiment, God would have to objective. While it is not impossible for God to manifest himself as objective, God is usually concidered outside of spacetime and therefore neither objective or subjective but spiritual (for want of a better word).
    As such there is no possible objective proof of God. This is the prime reason that science does not and can not address the question of God's existence or non existence. God is not within the realm of
    science, so God cannot be either proved or disproved or strictly speaking even spoken or written about in any scientific way.

    (Yet, when the subject of God is brought up many objective materialist immediately bring science into the picture and say that there is no evidence.)[?] [?] [?] [?] [?]
     
  20. Nov 3, 2003 #19
    Royce,

    A "theory of god" may not be as sensational as it sounds. It may simply be an extension of our present theory. I am not talking about going outside space time - this is speculation. And why shouldn't this extended reality be objective, even if it lies outside our everyday experience at the moment?

    According to my understanding, matter is presently caught in a state of incompleteness. We do not know what lies beyond our present incomplete reality, and our incomplete reality is even reflected in our theory.

    A new theory that describes the fullness of reality would be the same as demonstrating the existence of god, as we usually say according to our poetic thinking. But there is a big difference between having a new theory on paper, and living in the extended reality that it describes.

    I see no real reason why we shouldn't be able to use experiment to demonstrate god. However I would think that the best way to demonstrate god would be via meditation. After all, meditation is just a special type of experiment on matter, namely ourselves.

    You may argue that it is impossible for anyone to develop an extended theory without actually experiencing the extended reality first. I would argue that the power of mathematics allows us to develop theory that actually goes beyond our experience.

    This new theory is unlikely to be developed by a scholar. After all, they've had enough time to do so, using their methods, and I'm sorry to say that they haven't had much success. Its development may be a more subtle process. It may represent a final coming together of science and spirituality.
     
  21. Nov 3, 2003 #20
    Bariyon,
    I agree with you but there are many who would not. In my opinion I/we already have ample proof of the existence of God in our everyday lives and all around us. Meditation can and often does support this beyound our everyday experience. It is in fact why I know that God is and is a part of us as we of him. I am, however, a believer.

    There are those who will not accept any evidence that God exists and deny and evidence that he does. The thinking that QM may show the hand of God is ridiculed and rejected out of hand. Those who do not believe will go to any length to try to disprove and evidence and even make up "scientific" reasons to dispute any evidence that such exists.

    Even if we ever do find indisputable objective evidence of the hand or mind of God it will be rejected and ridiculed by some. Jesus would be in just as much if not more danger if he came back to earth today and announced himself as he was the first time. As the bible says there are none so blind as those who will not see.
     
  22. Nov 3, 2003 #21
    So, in that case, what begot what, in your opinion? Did God exist before the big-bang, or would you say he was created WITH the big bang? Somehow the notion of God being created after the big bang doesn't sound too strong( which can be said pretty much about my entire post). But then again, I just want to hear a few opinions on this regard.
     
  23. Nov 3, 2003 #22

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Some theists go like this: God has always existed - he can do that because he has all these infinite attributes. Matter and energy can't do that because they are finitistic and obey causality. Then the big bang is identified (somewhat naively) with God creating the universe. God is behind all the actions of this world, but His hand is hidden, because, to support our free will He doesn't want us to be just puppets. That's okay because "all things are possible with God", so everything, including evolution is both completely causal and completely God's will. You're not going to be able to reduce all that logically, and the atheists are driven to giggles by it, but theists don't care.
     
  24. Nov 3, 2003 #23

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    The question I am raising here is...

    What is so great about that?

    The key issue here is the conversion of rarity to specialness. No one denies that probability-wise, for things to have turned out the way it has is pretty rare. But what I don't really agree with is the idea of specialness - that the probabilities have any significance as a real dartboard the cosmic player is trying to hit. I am saying that we are drawing the bullseye after the dart has hit.

    And guess what? It's a direct hit. As I have said before, the one fuzziness on which the design argument lives or dies is the idea of purpose. If we conclude things have a purpose, then it seems pretty conclusive the way this purpose is met. But if we did not, then we can only find significance relative to us - and so we can feel fortunate, but that fortune is not the fortune of the universe.

    I did not get run over by a car today. Before I state that this is a case of a conscious fate, I must show that it actually matters to anything but me and maybe people who know me.

    Actually, I'll expect this to be leading on to a discussion of the anthropic principle, which has a number of solutions.

    1. Multiple universes. This is allowed by many theories, like Everett's Many Worlds hypothesis, M-theory and so on. If multiple universes exist, it seems certain that something like this would develop.

    2. Participatory universe models. This focuses on some physical significance to awareness, concluding that until observation, the universe was not real, so inevitably the ghost universe that eventually gained reality is the one where we live.

    3. Infinite space/time universes. There is definitely no clear consensus on this. Even BB offers little but speculation on what occured before the inflation stage of the universe.
     
  25. Nov 4, 2003 #24
    Royce et al,

    I don't see that there is anything special about god that cannot be understood by us or described by mathematical theory.

    At the moment we are able to experience god via meditation etc, but it still leaves us a little mystified - it is beyond our everyday experience.

    Perhaps some time in the distant future mankind will have an understanding of the reality that presently lies beyond our experience, and will know god.

    But at the moment we are still at the evolutionary stage of developing this understanding. So at the moment we are making statements such as "god does not exist" or "god exists but cannot be objective".

    Therefore I will make the statement "a theory of god is simply a matter of time, and from there it is simply a matter of time until god is part of our everyday experience."
     
  26. Nov 4, 2003 #25

    FZ+

    User Avatar

    Wait wait, Bariyon...

    Let me get you right...

    Your concept of god is that of an ultimate reality, a perfect reality, a sort of analogue of Plato's universe of Forms that underlies existence... right?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook