Whats the proof that god exists?

  • Thread starter HIGHLYTOXIC
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof
In summary, people believe in god because human minds are capable of creating something that does not exist. The idea of a god is dangerous because it causes people to argue and commit suicide.
  • #246
Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #247
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.
So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?
 
  • #248
Are you finished?
 
  • #249
Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Do you have any independent testimonials, corroboration, confirmation, attestation, authentication, demonstration, proof, substantiation, testimonials, testimony, validation or proof that you really exist and are not just an illusion in your own reality?
 
  • #250
I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.
 
  • #251
Originally posted by protonman
I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

If I were certain and had proof of a Creator who made us to see a holographic universe that appears as reality, then I would be a god. And you have no proof that you exist so you might answer yourself.

And I am not G-D...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #252
So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.
 
  • #253
Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

Answer: YES and NO

You make me CERTAIN OF SOMETHING. Evidence of your continued nonsense about which a signed 8X10 signed glossy would be proof of your existence.
 
  • #254
Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?
 
  • #255
Originally posted by protonman
Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

If I knew for certain that G-d existed then I would be god. He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
 
  • #256
He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?
 
  • #257
Originally posted by netme
Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know! [/B]

?
 
  • #258
evidence of design

Originally posted by Netme
What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"
 
  • #259
Originally posted by protonman

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

I know because of the following two words.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

There is a 0 percent statistical probablity that this universe could have come about or be sustained from moment to moment because of the above two words.

If anyone thinks they can understand that if one of the smallest changes or alterations in the formation of all things was altered or was not present, this universe and your existence would collapse into another void.

But you in your own self endowed wisdom may think that if there was a Creator you would just become somewhat smaller than you think of yourself.

Irreducible complexity means that anyone with any insight into the nature of things understands that there has to be a Creator.

Proof you ask?

Quote

Monsieur ... I did not believe in God; his existence has been disproved by Science. But in the concentration camp, I learned to believe in a Creator.

ATTRIBUTION: Jean-Paul Sartre
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #260


Originally posted by Rader

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"

Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.
 
  • #261
I want to summarize your argument so far. First off, you said I could not be certain that boiling water existed. Then you claimed that you talked with physicsts and used their testimony to establish that they admit they don't know what atoms, etc. really are. Then you claimed that you coulde be certain of somethings. One of which is that God 'keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.' Then finally you said 'If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.'

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.
The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

How do you define what exits?
 
Last edited:
  • #262


Originally posted by onycho
Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

Onycho this question in my humble opinion can only be answered on a individual basis. Would the evidence of anthropic "fine tuning" tell you something? If you understood it to mean hitting the lottery with the same number 50 times in a row. If you were aware to a very fullest extent of its probable meaning, you might ask yourself. Why am I privleged to know this. You might ask yourself, what responsibility would one have, for knowing this? Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.
 
  • #263
Originally posted by protonman

You summarize my responses to your simpleton question as separate, unrelated or irrelevant entities. My responses were just examples of the obvious while you seem to think that there must be a simple answer to the unknown.

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

My response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.

Name calling and hateful anti-Semitism are examples of your reality and personality. You rely on your own senses to tell you that hot water exists or that my religious beliefs are somehow invalid as apposed to your superior illusions.

The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

I never said that I knew anything for certain. It was you who was so certain about boiling water being painful. You have no proof of existence other than your own inherent ability to know for certain that your own 'human senses' are valid.

How do you define what exits?

Definition: Existence is not a mystery unless you think it has a meaning.

Belief with evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #264
Originally posted by Richard Radar

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #265
dichotomy or not

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Richard Rader

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If you mean by that, my way of explaining it, yes it is.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #266


Originally posted by Rader [/B]

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes.
 
  • #267


Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader
If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

It is the I that is aware, of which the "free will is invoked and the choice occurs. Why would the awareness of evidence nullify a "free will choice? How can "free will" be blind choices? The I is aware. The I makes the choice. I is aware of oneself, and is different from another self. The I is aware of oneself and the evidence of an event. The "isness" of the I, which is the soul of the man, is aware of the evidence and makes his "free will choice".

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes. [/B]

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

The other of "free will" is a choice, based on conscious awareness of the evidence at hand, to know the right or wrong choice.

Changing the parameters of knowing or not knowing change the outcome of the "free will choice" Only the I knows which is right or wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • #268


Originally posted by Rader

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.


Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #269
Let me refresh your memory.

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You:Answer: YES and NO

So you say that you can be certain of something here.

Laster you say...

YouMy response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

So up top you say that something can be known for certain and then later you say that nothing can be known for certain.

Based on what you have posted it has become clear to me that you really don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. Your posts are continuously contradicting yourself in your postings. Read mine there are none.

BTW, I had a hunch what your view was all along but now I understand it. You are making the classic mistake that anyone who accepts the idea of a creater would. Unfortunately for you I am not going to give it up right away.
 
  • #270
Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.
 
  • #271
Originally posted by onycho
Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.

How can you call me quoting your contraditions as opinion? You are the one who said them.
 
  • #272


Originally posted by onycho
[/i]

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

There is nothing in your last post that i disagree with, misinterpretation of the words, evidence, knowledge and I is what has made the appearance of a misunderstanding, to us. For a while i thought we had two totally different meanings.

It seems this exchange is a good example of what "free will" is.

You and I interprete what each has said and make a "free will" choice how to respond to it.. There can be two interpretations of the same meaning, only if that is the way we intrerprete it. This is where the understanding went wrong.
Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.
 
  • #273
i think god exists...
 
  • #274
Originally posted by WingZero
i think god exists...
So what.
 
  • #275
This thread is useless.
 
  • #276
Originally posted by Netme
This thread is useless.
Then don't read it. It was good until onycho decided he didn't want to face the fact that what he was saying made no sense all along. Then in his usual style said something ridiculous to which replied quite logically. I am still waiting for him to respond.
 
  • #277


Originally posted by Rader

...Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence. By this i simply mean evidence is the sentance and awareness is how you interprete it. No G-od, secrete understanding or meaning, no determinism, Richard "free will" choices come from his soul, what the world has taught him, how he intrerpretes it.

There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

2) Your free-will to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #278
Originally posted by WingZero

i think god exists...

G-d exists therefore you can think...
 
  • #279
Intellegent Design

Originally posted by onycho
There seem to be two different 'free wills' that we are both confusing.

Agreed, both make decisions one moral the other not.

1) Your free will to go to the movies or choose which university you want to attend.

This sort of "free will" observed in two split experiments.

2) Your "free will" to choose between good and evil or to be charitable or miserly.

This is only observed in the human species.

It all has to do with moral imperatives. The latter form of free-will is that which is intedertminate or has no final outcome. The universe is full of moral and ethical choices for humans.

Yes but just let me reiterate my past statement that for the same moral decision, there can be two different choices, using the same bases for the decision. 9/11 Those terrorists crashed those planes for the same reason we would not, believing in a G-d.

If a Creator gives man the latter form of 'free-will', it is not for choosing which suit or tie to wear and should I have a hamburger for lunch. I do not think that we are aware of or have any evidence of an infinite Being, for then our moral and ethical choices would be negated for we would have done them with the full knowledge that we loose our hard struggle with ourselves and would harm ourselves and our existence by choosing evil with the knowledge that this wrong.

Fine, i have no evidence and you say you do not. Let's find out if there is.

It seems that even the particles that make up the solid part of the universe has a form of 'free-will' or wisdom which is seen in Bell's theory. All of the smallest particles in our perceived universe appear to be inter-connected and aware of each other.

Yes Bell¨s Theory has made a case no one has explained yet. There is also another enigma, not yet explained, how complex biochemical systems came into being. It seems to me there may be a link and that is where i want to lead this discussion now. Intellegent Design. We should set some rules to go by first.
01-Cause of Intellegent design is not deterministic, we should leave a Creator out of this for the moment.


"Free-will" is the choice of moral imperatives that we all make in our existence on this planet.

Fine, Do you want to set any other rule or parameter before we start?
 
Last edited:
  • #280
onycho,

At least admit you lost. Ignoring me is so cowardly.
 

Similar threads

Reading comprehensive tamper-proof and tapping process
    • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
572
B Implication of Goedel's theorems on physics
    • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
I God's algorithm as undecidable?
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
800
I Analytical proof of LASER production
    • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Why empirical science rules out a god.
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Proving well ordering principle from Peano Axioms
    • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
99
B I've been trying to understand the proof for the binomial theorem
    • General Math
Replies
6
Views
278
Endurance22 Mission Finds Shackleton's Endurance Wreck: Proof of Preservation?
    • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
769
I Question about branch of logarithms
    • Topology and Analysis
Replies
14
Views
451
I Is an algorithm for a proof required to halt?
    • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top