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.
  • #36
developing scientific theory would seem to be relevant if and only if there were any scientists trying to prove God exists.

developing science would seem to indicate or presume that God's existence is mysterious or non-obvious, which it may or may not be. but let's even say that some being claims to be God and shows itself to everyone "in the flesh." the above arguments in a previous post of mine show that even if a supposed God revealed itself to us, we would have a hard time proving that it is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, perfect, immortal, and all the jazz, unless it uses its omnipotence to give us omniscience which would then give us the ability to know if it is God.

btw, my guess is that psychology or some psychology-related science will be more relevant than a physical science if science will ever prove God exists. specifically, the psychology of consciousness and the "expansion of consciousness."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Pheonixthoth,

We seem to be invoking different definitions of god.

I do not adhere to the belief that god is some sort of superman. I know that idea is put forward in the bible, but my view is that if it is a helpful thought to some people, then I am not going to discredit it.

The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.

So if we simply get on with the task of developing our understanding, particularly physics theory, then we will eventually realize that we have been on a path of discovering god, even if we don't acknowledge it now.

In this sense, the main objective of theoretical physics is the discovery of god. And it was the main objective of the prophets, the buddhist masters, etc.

I fully agree that if physics develops an understanding of god, then it will bring together physics and psychology, and perhaps change them both beyond recognition.
 
  • #38
The point I was trying to make is that discussions of god can become futile, especially if we are talking about something before we have even worked out what it is.
perhaps such an endeavour is futile in general but it does work in geometry and set theory in which points and sets are not defined yet a seemingly productive discussion of them takes place without working out what they are. however, discussing the nature of sets and points doesn't and can't prove they exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
I for one believe in the existence of the all powerful infinitely wise God. I look at the irreducible complexity of nature and the vast evidence of intelligent design and wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. However, proving his existence I think is impossible. One of the laws of the universe is trial by faith. We are put here on Earth to be tested like gold refined in the fire. They that overcome become as God, his agents creating a new universe in the next great epoch. How can you pass judgement on the creator without automatically forfeiting your own soul. How can I question the wisdom of God. If God destroy me what can I do. If God preserve me, then it is intirely at his mercy.
For the sceptics, how do you know what you know? What is proof? What is reality? All of science and math are founded on a set of assumptions. If those assumptions are not correct, then all of our theorizing and speculations will not hold.
He who thinks must believe!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
this is argument 6 from
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

i think there is at least one person who uses each argument to "prove" God exists, actually. i love the perfection argument as well as the creative definition one.

how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.

For the sceptics, how do know what you know? What is proof? What is reality?
do you mean skeptics of the statement "God exists" or "God doesn't exist?" your questions apply to both types of skeptics.

here's "proof" 3 from that site:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
while this is obviously flawed, i think i can message it into a better argument (that still has flaws).:
ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I-reloaded)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) X exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

however, this seems pretty silly depending on what X is, like if X is president bush's penis (though that may be his God).

if X is the universe, or perhaps more, all that is, then that may be better but attributing consciousness, omnipotence, and some other traits seem difficult to me with that definition.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God. There is a list for the nonexistence of God argument equally long and equally founded on logical fallacies. The problem is that every argument begins with a premise, that is an assumption that a statement is true to reality. To make the assumption you must BELIEVE something is true. You here many people claim that such and such is a proven fact. But what is proof. Isn't proof just a statement that many people choose to believe. Then that in itself is the logical fallacy of mass appeal. Many people can believe something is true but it is not necessarily true. All reasoning begins with an assumption. We can choose to believe in God and reason from there, or we can choose not to believe in God and get an intirely different result. As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.
 
  • #42
all it takes (either for a proof or a disproof) is one argument not resting on unprovable assumptions and not making any definition that are arbitrary (not to mention possibly self-serving).

on that note, i wish both sides luck because the rules of inference and the belief that observation gives any insight into truth or reality are unprovable assumptions.

this:
how about a collection of "proofs" that God doesn't exist? i'll start the list off:
1. the arguments here: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm are all flawed.
2. therefore, God doesn't exist.
was a joke. this site is linked to by a sight with an atheism theme by a self-proclaimed athiest. i think that it is actually thought by some people that since all known arguments for the existence of God are flawed, then that constitutes proof that God does not exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
God

The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist
 
  • #44
Originally posted by birdus
If you made a thousand arguements for the nonexistence of God, how would you know that you have eliminated all possibilities. There may be one more argument yet unthought of that proves the existence of God.

It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.


Originally posted by birdus
As for me, I choose to believe in God and begin reasoning from there.

This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.
 
  • #45
proof

"it is primitive to believe something exist or does not exist"
i do not remember who created that quote but if there is no proof
in something or against it then would the decision to believe or not believe be entirely up to you my view on it is all questionable but i have my reasons for it there is proof of things happening without an explanation before so this in a way does proof that a "higher" being is a posiablity.
 
  • #46


Originally posted by Wolf
The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist

Not that one again.

1. The principle of conservation of energy is a property of the universe - thus there is no reason to assume it applies before, after or outside the universe.
2. There was no time before the universe either. Time is a property of the universe. There was no moment when the universe did not exist, just as there was no time when you were waiting for your parents to conceive you.
3. Even if the universe did have to have a cause, why do you assume it was 'God'? Why that god? Why not a computer programmer in another dimension? Why not some cosmic natural event?
4. If everything has to have a cause, what was God's cause? And of course you will want to follow with some sort of 'God is special - he is not part of time, he encloses all of time, he always existed' argument to which I will respond:
a. How do you know what the properties of this thing are that you have yet to show the existence of?
b. If you can ascribe these qualities to god without logical contradiction, I can ascribe them to reality/the universe, after all, since time is an aspect of space-time which is a property of reality, I could argue that the universe 'is not within time' and 'encloses all of time' too.
 
Last edited:
  • #47


god is assumed to be for the fact that we have no other explanation if you where to go back to the time in which the story of god was created and you altered it then we would be having this same disscusion about whatever you changed it to in short i believe that there are "higher beings" but no god i believe in higher beings due to i have seen people running up walls or along them prooving for me that there is some beings that through proper traning can do more than an average being but god is though to exist because no one can prove else can you prove he does not exist?or can you prove he does no
some believe in god due to "when they pray they can feel his warm light around them" to this i reply how do you know that is just not your own hope increasing and through that hope you can achieve more than before
 
  • #48
god is assumed to be for the fact that we have no other explanation if you where to go back to the time in which the story of god was created and you altered it then we would be having this same disscusion about whatever you changed it to in short i believe that there are "higher beings"

In other words people invent (without justification) a blanket explanation for the gaps in their knowledge yet this explanation is mysterious in itself, thus ultimately explaining nothing. We used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits - now we know better. God used to be a more immediate being who lived on Mt Sinai, then in the sky - he has moved further and further away until he has become nothing more than the started the causal chain going.


but no god i believe in higher beings due to i have seen people running up walls or along them prooving for me that there is some beings that through proper traning can do more than an average being but god is though to exist

Do you mean acrobats?

because no one can prove else can you prove he does not exist?or can you prove he does no

1. can you (or anyone ) define what this thing is that I'm supposed to disprove.

2. I never said that we are justified in knowing that God doesn't exist, only that belief is unjustified.

3. with all beliefs, we do not start by assuming existence and challenging others to disprove it. Can you give me any non-religious examples of this? If we went around believing in things just because we couldn't disprove them, we would have as many beliefs as we had thoughts - we would be like extreme schizophrenics.

The onus is on anyone making a positive claim to provide the evidence/argument, and then there is something there to be disproved. This applies to all issues, why should different rules apply here? (If you want to say 'cos God is special', see my previous post for the response.)
 
  • #49
The only thing that has any remote prove of a "god" is that no
one can explain what happened if there is no god then what began
everything?science says that everything begins from something else
so what started it all?
the only thing that really proves some "god" may exist is that we exist
ah, the good ol' first cause argument.
1. there must be a first cause
2. therefore, there is a first cause
3. God is the first cause.
It is irrational to believe in things without justification. There may be arguments you've never heard for the existence of gravity elves. Does that mean that it is sane to believe in them, or even to regard the belief in them to be as valid as the lack of belief in them? No. The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist. Having said that, I've yet to come across an intelligible or even a consistent definition of God, so I don't really understand what this thing/nonthing that supposedly exists outside of existence is claimed to be.
correct conclusions can sometimes be arrived at illogically. hence, i suppose, irrationally. therefore, the irrationality of an argument doesn't prove the conclusion is wrong, just illogical. this post redeems itself with the comment, "The fact that there may be unknown arguments or evidence for God just means we cannot know for certainty that he does not exist," which is what i would say. as for the intelligible/consistent definition of God, what about the following one: God is all that is? I'm not saying this is my definition; just wondering what you think.
This type of thought-bypassing manouvre is sometimes called 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps'. Yes, you are indeed free to believe whatever unchallenged nonsense you like.
i agree that assuming God exists and using that assumption to prove God exists is pretty flawed but i don't agree that the statement "God exists" is nonsense. but I'm going to make my own definition of what is nonsense and go from there. ;)

oh, just noticed Mumeishi already dispensed with the first cause argument. kudos to Mumeishi. also like the idea of the burden of proof resting with those making the claim. and since you used the word "positive," the same doesn't apply to those making the claim "God does not exist." i think that the burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim, be it positive or negative. i do agree that we shouldn't necessarily believe in everything we can't disprove though. it does seem like a slippery slope to me to say that once we believe in God due to lack of disproof then that means we have to believe in everything due to lack of disproof.
 
  • #50
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.
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?

an age-old exchange not unlike the rest of this thread. in response to the second quoted message, "How can you trust your feelings, that "god" exists" in particular, do you believe that love exists? do you go around telling everyone who claims to be in love that they're not because love doesn't exist and is illogical and imaginary with the question "how can you trust your feelings?" let's take it a step further, then. how can you trust any observations, including observations in a science lab? however, perhaps love doesn't exist, or at least that many people who think they're in love are just confused. i might tell my daughter who has known a guy for 2 days and wants to get married that she's not in love. however, the number of "bona fide" instances of love leads me to suspect that love may exist. the other natural question is "how can you attribute God to whatever you're feeling?" this is a very good question and i don't have a good answer. all i can tell you is that if you ever felt it, you wouldn't ask it anymore.

nothing above (that i wrote) is intended to be a proof that God exists.
 
  • #51
Mumeishi,

with all beliefs, we do not start by assuming existence and challenging others to disprove it. Can you give me any non-religious examples of this?
Some physicists believe in a theory of everything, even though there is no evidence that it exists. Are these believing physicists being irrational?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
god

i said some believe in god because they cannot porve other wise and no i do NOT mean acrobatics i have a thread of my own read that threadand you will see what i mean
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Bariyon
Some physicists believe in a theory of everything, even though there is no evidence that it exists. Are these believing physicists being irrational?

It is not irrational to believe in the possibility. It is irrational to feel certain when evidence does not justify that.

It also depends what you mean by 'believe in a theory of everything'. It seems very plausible that all phenomena have a common source and as time goes by we collect more and more evidence to unify the phenomena that we know - all things are made of a finite set of atoms - all atoms are made of a smaller number of subatomic particles, matter is ultimately a form of energy. The electromagnetic forces and strong and weak nuclear forces have (I think) been shown to be aspects of the same. We can extrapolate from there. But until proven, this is just rational speculation.

Another matter is whether it is even possible for mankind with his finite brain to understand 'everything'. Even string theorists generally regard this as an open question. As Brian Greene put it:
No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you’re going to fail.

Scientists do not 'believe in' theories in the same way that some people believe in God (not the sane ones at any rate). They simply regard a particular theory as being the best model we have for a particular phenomenon. If they get so emotionally attached to an idea that they believe it is 'true' without evidence, or with evidence against it, then they are straying into pseudoscience or at least 'bad' science.

The current best candidate for a 'theory of everything' - M theory (with the five string theories and supergravity as aspects of it) - is unproven but it's perceived value is not based on faith - it is based on its proven power to explain many hitherto incompatible aspects of physics which emerge from it mathematically without adding arbitrary constants.
 
  • #54
Where is your thread Wolf?
 
  • #55
It is not irrational to believe in the possibility. It is irrational to feel certain when evidence does not justify that.

it is not irrational to believe that God is a possibility, then. or purple people or santa clause for that matter.

question: does irrational=wrong? if so, does logical=right?

the way i would have phrased it is this: some physicists believe that a theory of everything (in particular, the one inch equation) exists though there is no proof that it does.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
Originally posted by phoenixthoth
it is not irrational to believe that God is a possibility, then. or purple people or santa clause for that matter.

A very remote possibility for all of the above, if at all. And what 'God' (and 'Santa') are would have to be defined in terms which were meaningful and not self inconsistent. I'd say there was evidence against all of the above.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
question: does irrational=wrong? if so, does logical=right?

'Irrational to believe' in real terms means probably wrong unless by coincidence (or genetic determination). Logic can tell you the most likely situation based on available evidence - it cannot give you the direct truth of factual matters.

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
the way i would have phrased it is this: some physicists believe that a theory of everything (in particular, the one inch equation) exists though there is no proof that it does.

A theory is something created by humans. No such theory exists as far as we know. It is not rational to assume that such a theory is a certainty in the future.
 
  • #57
I happen to like the idea from the post in the general philosophy -Religion imposed by Evolution . God could be just an excuse for us not to commit mass suicides whenever something bad happened. but as for proof...for some the beliefs of the masses are enough to convince them but for some of the more inquisitive ppl, the concrete/written proof seems non-existant or too old or extraordinary to seem true.
 
  • #58
I think that religion is the product of a complex interaction between evolution and memetics. Just because God is an invention does not mean that there are (or have been historically at least) social and evolutionary advantages for religious behaviour - primarily social cohesion.
 
  • #59
But still...what proof is there of a god (or proof that there isn't a god)? It isn't like ppl couldn't get along without worshiping the diety of their choice (santa & purple ppl included). Besides history also shows that religious activity leads to huge amounts of unnecessary bloodshed. I wouldn't care enough to waste the energy to reply if humans didn't go to such extremes over their religion.
 
  • #60
There is no proof or evidence for God. There is evidence against the theistic story (requiring them to reinterpret the story) eg. the sky is not a 'firmament', evolution, etc, but no proof. How can a concept like 'God' be disproved if it has not been defined in a coherent, consistent or testable way? Any number of 'non-disprovable' hypotheses can be erected - can you disprove the invisible gravity elves (who live in another dimension)? A hypothesis has to presented in a testable way and supported by evidence before there is even something there to disprove - otherwise we would have an unlimited number of unsupported beliefs.

We have better (simpler and more powerful) hypotheses for much which was explained by ancient Hewbrew tribesmen in terms of divine acts.

Certainly there have been and are some terrible and usually very long religious wars. And many atheists hark on about this. And its very easy to point to one war or historical event as if it existed in isolation and say that without religion those people would not have suffered and died. But to me whether there would be less bloodshed without religion is unclear - the world would be a different place and I simply don't know. The wars might be between secular ideologies instead - the number of people murdered by Stalinism was collosal (significantly more than those killed by the Nazis).

Religion tends to create more internal social cohesion and cooperation but to decrease tolerance to external belief systems.

But society is changing. Personally I think that pluralism and secular government is necessary for all modern multicultural states.

Anyway, whether something has evolutionary and memetic advantages has no direct reletionship with how good it is for the welfare of mankind or the individual man. Consider the cultural trait of suicide bombing - it certainly doesn't do much good to the individual, but it does give militarily dominated groups an effective weapon where otherwise they would have none - and without religion it probably wouldn't be possible.
 
  • #61
I am a Diest. Thus, I believe God created the universe but only to let the universe run by natural laws. Hence, he is not an iterventionist god and prayer is useless. Can I prove there is a God ? No. Can I prove he created us? No. Thus, this belief is just pure faith.I grew up among Hindi and Muslim friends in Malaysia and learned early to respect as well as distrust the world's major religions.


The big bang theory does not preclude a god, for me. In much the same way evolution does not preclude a god (for me.) It shows that God was a brilliant scientist! I think the state of the world shows a very indifferent god, much akin to our own indifferance when we create a whole universe of bacterial colonies in petri dishes and throw them away into the hazardous waste bins. Many great scientists and thinkers were Diests or religious, even Einstein never lost his spirituality. (Don't forget Mendel, a monk, Faraday, a devout fanatic christian, Newton, essentially a Diest/Unitarian. etc. etc.)

It is irrational, but perhaps it is because even the most rational does not relinquish the idea that there is something greater than us. In addition, for some, probing into the depths of science either makes you more of an athiest or more spiritual. As a physics professor once told me "Mathmatics and science is the language of God." not the bible. He felt that if one studied mathematics and science, we saw the intricacy and brilliance of a God without all the ridiculous sanctions imposed by cultural values.


As you can see, I am basically a simple person.

just my two cents worth.:smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Originally posted by adrenaline
I grew up among Hindi and Muslim friends in Malaysia and learned early to respect as well as distrust the world's major religions.

Did you learn to distrust or at least question Christianity too?

Originally posted by adrenaline

The big bang theory does not preclude a god, for me. In much the same way evolution does not preclude a god (for me.) It shows that God was a brilliant scientist!

No - it shows that the Gravity Elves were brilliant scientists! Have ye no faith?!

Originally posted by adrenaline
I think the state of the world shows a very indifferent god, much akin to our own indifferance when we create a whole universe of bacterial colonies in petri dishes and throw them away into the hazardous waste bins.

What happened to a loving omnibenevolent god?

Originally posted by adrenaline

Many great scientists and thinkers were Diests or religious, even Einstein never lost his spirituality. (Don't forget Mendel, a monk, Faraday, a devout fanatic christian, Newton, essentially a Diest/Unitarian. etc. etc.)

There's a big difference between theism and spirituality. Einstein certainly wasn't religious in any recognisable traditional sense. Belief in God actually decreases with increased education, particularly scientific education. Scientists probably have the lowest percentage of religious belief of any profession.

Originally posted by adrenaline

It is irrational, but perhaps it is because even the most rational does not relinquish the idea that there is something greater than us.

Who could possibly deny that? But it is more honest to humbly let the truth reveal itself through evidence that to claim knowledge of the ultimate through direct personal insight.
 
  • #63
Malaysia is a predominantly Islamic country with a large proportion of Hindis and Buddists (the latter due to the Asian population.) So most of my peers were not Christians. However, My father is Quaker (essentilly Unitarian.) and my mother a born again christian who could never quite sell me her religion. So yeah, I questioned Christianity my whole life argueing with her.

I believe the scientists I mentioned were very religious with the exception of Einstein. Faraday was in his heydey a member of a literal small sect called the Sandemanians. Newton rejected the trinity but still believed in a God. Einstein definitely rejected his formal Jewish beliefs and was more spiritual and pantheistic. You are right that todays modern thinkers are more and more areligious and there is a direct correlation with educational level.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
A direct proof that God does exist is the fact that we have evolved to ask the question does God exist. Nothing can not exist if we think that it might. The question and the answer is inbreed in the evolution of life everywhere in the universe. Something set exactly right, all the parameter of laws, precisely correct, for us to exist.
 
  • #65
Originally posted by Rader
A direct proof that God does exist is the fact that we have evolved to ask the question does God exist. Nothing can not exist if we think that it might. The question and the answer is inbreed in the evolution of life everywhere in the universe. Something set exactly right, all the parameter of laws, precisely correct, for us to exist.

Even if 'Godidit' was the only explanation we could come up with that wouldn't be proof, as there could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of.

As it is, the 'Godidit' hypothesis is is competing with more powerful(and less self-contradictory and logically absurd) ideas and is no more plausible than 'Gravity Elves' or anything else I could think up after smoking a big joint.
 
  • #66
I personally don't believe in god per se, but definitely in a higher power. How this power came to be, i cannot be for sure, but the way the god of the bible "always was" is a little strange. I mean, he existed before anything, and when i ask people (parents, priests, ect)how this can be, they just say, because he is god.

Or maybe "god" is like how adrenaline says, that he DID create us and wants nothing to do with us, or, well...maybe well...maybe we all just picked the wrong religion and mormons might be right (like on South Park, not trying to be offensive).
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Even if 'Godidit' was the only explanation we could come up with that wouldn't be proof, as there could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of.

As it is, the 'Godidit' hypothesis is is competing with more powerful(and less self-contradictory and logically absurd) ideas and is no more plausible than 'Gravity Elves' or anything else I could think up after smoking a big joint.

I agree. There could always be possibilities beyond our imagination and intellect which we had not conceived of yet.
Solution stop smoking joints and you might come up with one.

:smile:
 
  • #68
Originally posted by psychosporin
I personally don't believe in god per se, but definitely in a higher power. How this power came to be, i cannot be for sure, but the way the god of the bible "always was" is a little strange. I mean, he existed before anything, and when i ask people (parents, priests, ect)how this can be, they just say, because he is god.

Or maybe "god" is like how adrenaline says, that he DID create us and wants nothing to do with us, or, well...maybe well...maybe we all just picked the wrong religion and mormons might be right (like on South Park, not trying to be offensive).

Or maybe its all emotionally and politically driven feverish speculations of a bunch of small-brained humans without the wit or humility to realize that they can't have all the answers on plate - especially not answers they can pick from a menu to suit their emotional needs.

Why do you believe in a 'higher power' whatever that is?
 
  • #69
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Or maybe its all emotionally and politically driven feverish speculations of a bunch of small-brained humans without the wit or humility to realize that they can't have all the answers on plate - especially not answers they can pick from a menu to suit their emotional needs.

Why do you believe in a 'higher power' whatever that is?

Like I said, i wasnt trying to be annoying/offensive, sorry if i have offended you Mumeishi.

But anyways...what i mean by "higher power" is that I have not proven to myself that God exists. But I believe that there is something there, some creative source, not necessarily the god of the bible (Yahweh, or something). I guess the reason that i lost my faith in god and started believeing in a higher power is because i have seen a lot of different beliefs among christianity, so i am trying to find a new religion(maybe even another denomination of christianity), hence the "higher power"
 
  • #70
You didn't offend me in the least. Feel free to annoy me as much as you like - don't hold back.

What do you mean by 'creative source' and why do you believe in it?
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
531
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
780
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
14
Views
340
Replies
4
Views
728
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
443
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
1K
Back
Top