Whats the proof that god exists?

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Exactly. This argument in fact disproves the existence of an ultimate being, since there is always a more ultimate being beyond it. If the argument is correct, of course. The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god.

Your argument is faulty. Your chain analogy is on a contiuum backward into infinity. An Entity that may not have been created or created itself into existence is beyond compreshension (human).

Can you or anyone truly comprehend an infinty? Timelessness in a dimension without borders, shape, that extends into a void. The limits of conscious awareness to comprehend or visualize such a construct would be pointless as there is nothing to measure and no physical laws or quantum mechanics which never was, is or will ever apply to this theory.

What if our reality is only as we assume and our consciousness is only fiction in a particular holograph created for our perception in a short period of time allocated in this singularity.

 

[Philophysicist]

phoenixthoth says "the induction would apply to God saying something greater than God created God". If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I don't think that shoots down the argument at all.

FZ2 says "The chain could be broken at any time by the prescence of a being that created itself. This, most accept, does not neccessitate that entity being a god." True ,however I can't think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.

 

[phoenixthoth]

If that God call him God2 realized that there was a greater being then obviously God2 is not the ultimate. I don't think that shoots down the argument at all.

that's the point. the argument does not end, ever. if the induction actually did work then apply the induction hypothesis to whoever one would think the ultimate is to get an even more ultimate. thus the argument would prove that there is no ultimate because there would always be a being more ultimate. the whole induction step was predicated on the assumption that the creator of a being is more powerful or somehow greater than its creation which is quite debatable. so not only does the induction actually prove there is no greatest or most powerful being, the induction hypothesis is debatable (certainly not air-tight or impeccable), even if the induction would work and show there is an ultimate, one would have to define that ultimate to be God and there's no particular reason why that's a definition of God that would be universally acceptable.

i know God exists and i'd like it if there were a proof of it but i don't think this is it. i beleive, though i can't prove, that you'll never have an airtight proof of either of the following statements:
1. God exists
2. God does not exist.
part of the reason is that an argument would probably have to include a definition of God which would undoubtedly be unacceptable to everyone.

 

[Philophysicist]

OK I think were getting hung up on induction.

Instead of "Therefore by induction, God exists." we can say

"God is thus the limiting entity as entity superiorty goes to infinity".

We can make it mathematical. Assign a superiorty rating to entities of n. Then the godliness of an entity g(n) goes to God in the limit as superiority n increases to infinity,

g = g(n) --> g(°) = God
for n --> °

We want to introduce a limit to terminate the argument at infinity.

 

[phoenixthoth]

what makes a creator superior to the creation?

 

[FZ+]

True ,however I can't think of a entity who realizes it exists and who can create itself as not being all powerful . Perhaps you can give an example.

Why, additionally, does the entity have to realize it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation.

Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
what makes a creator superior to the creation?

Because it has to be phrased that way in order to come to the conclusion that a specific version of the "god" concept exists.

 

[Deeviant]

A god is simply not possible in our known universe with the current laws of physics.

Anybody describing a god outside our physical reality would just be guessing, in which case the concept of a god would be directly comparible to daydreaming about traveling back in time and saving a princess from a terrible dragon.

 

[phoenixthoth]

i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?

 

[Deeviant]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
i guess my faith in physics is just not as strong as yours.

is the existence of God even a falsifiable claim?

??

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.

 

[phoenixthoth]

let's ask the mad scientist... that's not what falsifiable means. i forget what it means in science terms but basically it means something that is within the scope of science as far as i remember. for example, if i claim that there is a completely undetectable dodo-ray that no detector will ever detect than that's not a falsifiable claim. now if i claimed that there was a dodo-ray that could be detected if i do x, y, and z, and it has these a, b, and c properties, then that is a falsifiable claim. that's my retarted understanding of a falsifiable claim. google "falsifiable claim" for a real explanation.

as far as i knew there was a paradigm shift in science in that it is now recognized that the scope of science is only falsifiable claims.

some people define God to include something which is in a heaven, a place some people define to be accessable only to someone who is dead. thus in order to prove God is omnipresent, one would have to have access to heaven. hence, the claim that God is omnipresent is by definition not falsifiable by a living scientist.

that doesn't mean there is a God nor is it meant at all to prove there is a God. it just means that the claim God exists and is omnipresent is not falsifiable and therefore not within the scope of science one way or another. scientists define science to be the inappropriate tool to figure out if there is a God. it is, on the other hand, within the scope of philosophy and perhaps other tools are equipped to determine the God issue as well, but I'm of the mind that it will never be proven either way. besides, a proof is just a matter of meeting arbitrary criteria and satisfying convention, whether it be mathematical, judicial, popular, individual, scientific, philosophical, etc.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

Why, additionally, does the entity have to realize it exists? The first being capable of realisation does not have to be God, either. Existence does not have to occur from conscious creation. Many things appear acausally in quantum physics. A mind can create itself - something demonstrated with every birth, every awakening.

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.

Your example of 'every birth or awakening' being an example of self-creation is a total lack of logic. And absence of logic is something that you appear to be able to create on your own.

SOMETHING FROM NOTHING... That's remarkable.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Deeviant

I believe that is possible to refute anyone that claims to have any knowledge of a god.

Your statement that you believe you can refute anyone that claims to have an understanding that things must be created can also be refuted.

IMO your existence can also be successfully refuted.

 

[onycho]

I HAVE PROOF THAT G-D EXITS

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.

See, now THAT is some funny stuff!LOL, that's a perfect definition of unfalsifiable...we don't even get to know what the claim is!

 

[FZ+]

The answer to your question is a question. For you, an entity, why is it necessary for you to realize that you exist?

It is not necessary for me, as an entity, but it is necessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument.

For the second part of your question, existence cannot appear without cause as per your example of quantum physics simply because neither quantum physics nor any laws of nature can occur by itself like a magician's rabbit in hat trick.

And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

For you to make such a ludicrous statement that a 'mind can create itself' is the equivalent of your creating yourself because it is your desire.

Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by phoenixthoth

I personally have proof that G-d exists and further that He does not live in heaven.

But I'm not going to share my proof with you for then everyone would know for certain and that would take your G-d given 'freewill' away from you.

So for the time being, debate that which cannot be debated.

Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church.

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning."

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, there is something to be said about that. Just look at all the robots in the "so-called" Christian Church.

However, that isn't to say that the search for God is none other than the "Quest for Meaning."

Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

It is not necessary for me, as an entity, but it is necessary for me, as an intelligence. But we have not yet established the existence of this intelligence, and so, this is very close to a circular argument. And so, God is disproved? Hmm?

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.

The basis of all created or appeared universes, with an origin, is that something can occur by itself. If not, it does not matter what you call it, the universe could not have appeared. The alternative is that some element of the universe has always existed.

It seems by your statement that you believe in that archaic theory of life arising out of decaying matter. If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness. But with the background radiation, the origin of the universe can be said to have occurred at a point in time. Either everything appeared by itself or by an unseen hand. Only I know the answer to that one.

Before you call it ludicrous, why is it ludicrous? We agree we have minds, right? Then, when you wake up from a sleep, where does your mind come from? So, what's your solution?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?

 

[phoenixthoth]

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

 

[FZ+]

What if I told you that you are not an entity at-all but simply pure intelligence without being either matter or solid? There is nothing circular at all about existing as pure essence of freewill in this timeless dimension of ours.

I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a necessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

Your statement about G-d being disproved is neither valid nor erroneous as nothing can be demonstrated as being the whole truth.

You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

The alternative is that God was always there.

But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

If you are saying that the universe has always existed, then you would have to say that our universe and all matter would have long ago (trillions X 10000000000000000000000000000000000(23) power light years) disappeared as it expanded into nothingness.

Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

My mind goes to dreamland after having fairy dust spread over my head.

Question: Where was your mind (awareness) before you were born?

That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth

i think it's safe to say there are robotic followers of any system. for example, pick out a student of high school chemistry and he or she will tell you with a feeling of absolute certainty that water molecules are made of two hydrogen and one oxygen molecules, whether or not they've done any experiements on this. to some people, what's written in a science textbook/journal is taken with absolute faith and credulity. others, not in the so-called rank and file, doubt everything they see. the same distinction exists in followers of so-called faith-based systems such as those of a spiritual orientation: the robots and the non-robots. believe it or not, folks, there are non-robot spiritual adherents out there.

Please allow me try to simplify your statement above.

Some people who are believers in your perspective become robots and follow each other in line, ergo if you believe you are a robot and without freewill but if you are a skeptic you are absolutely correct.

Nothing is black and white. There are shades of gray. At least it is as we assume it to be.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by FZ+

I think you are skirting the question. In reference to the original argument, it was claimed that God must exist because of a necessary chain of intelligent (superior) causes. It is more or less logical to say that each of these causes must have existed. It does not seem logical that each must have been intelligent, to form a neat ladder to the ultimate intelligence.

There is a logic of language and a logic of mathematics. The former is supple and lifelike, it follows our experience. The latter is abstract and rigid, more ideal. The latter is perfectly necessary, perfectly reliable: the former is only sometimes reliable and hardly ever systematic. But the logic of mathematics achieves necessity at the expense of living truth, it is less real than the other, although more certain. It achieves certainty by a flight from the concrete into abstraction. Doubtless, to an idealist, this would seem to be a more perfect reality. I am not an idealist. The logic of the poet—that is, the logic of language or the experience itself—develops the way a living organism grows: it spreads out towards what it loves, and is heliotropic, like a plant. There is no logical reason for superior or inferior causes for any intelligence or for the knowledge of a Creator.

You stated that nothing can make itself. Thus, God could not have come into existence.

Unless you assert a priori.

The alternative is that God was always there. But then, I do not choose to call it God, but rather "the element of the universe that has always existed." After all, that is the only function we have shown it to have. It does not need to be an hand, a simple case of phase change may suffice. Or an infinite bubbling out of transient universes - the possibilities are infinite, and to jump on one, for no reason, is clearly premature.

What you choose to call "IT" is meaningless. The term 'hand' is for our feeble minds ot comprehend the incomprehesible and have something to visualize which cannot be visualized. There are no describable attributes to describe an unknowable essence. No one has claimed that they have found the infinite as my previous reply was facetious.

Light years is a measure of distance. What are you saying here?

Light years is also a measure of the "TIME' that light photons travel in one year. I am saying that any concept of an always existing universe has a probablity of -0.

That is the question I am asking you. Three solutions: either the mindless matter creates the mind, which invalidates the original argument, or the mind self creates, which invalidates the original argument, or an omnipresent mind makes it, which does not invalidate the original argument, but turns it into an useless circular one.

You are making the circular arguements. ∑ = ∞ + ∫א

Only the human mind invalidates what it cannot understand or comprehend. A little glimpse of the incomprehensible.

http://evidence1.homestead.com/ProofLife.html

 

[Visitor]

The answer is simple, there is none.

Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.


He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you?

 

[phoenixthoth]

that's precisely why i think there is no proof. it does seem that an omnipotent being could snap its fingers and make you believe it is God though but that's what you call a false conviction, right?

to me, the explanation for there being no proof is that this is how free will is built into the universe. we are all free to believe, or not, apparently at our discretion.

 

[Jonh Doe]

Despite what most people think, it is actually possible for God, the Big Bang, and Evolution to all coexist.

I approve. (I could say why I approve, but I saw on another forum that it was forbidden on Physics Forums to have religious talks about God.)

 

[Visitor]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

The answer is simple, there is none. Think of it this way, if he existed and stood before you this very second, what could he do that would absolutely convince you he was God? The answer is there is nothing he could do, omnipotent as he is, to convince you 100% that he was God other than imposing that conviction on you which would be a false conviction even though it is true.


He could pull a rabbit out of a hat... Would that convince you?

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

 

[Jonh Doe]

I think it would be easy enough for god to prove to you he is actually god. Just tell him what you would think is absolutely impossible (example: pop a planet out of nowhere, go at the speed of light, take a rabbit out a truly empty hat, ect... (you get my point)), and have him do it. I he can, then he is truly god. Otherwise, he is an impostor. Not to forget that the concept of god is that he is all-powerful.

If you still refuse to believe after this, then it is you that is stuck on your idea, and nothing could make you believe, just as some people still think fire does not burn after they have been burnt. What could I say more?!?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if anyone of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first...

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

 

[Visitor]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

More to the point, would that convince YOU?

The proof exists in the irreducible complexity of you. This means that if anyone of a trillion events did not occur in precisely the right order you wouldn't have one single neuron.

Take one of the minute chemical reactions out of this sequence and you wouldn't be here. What are the chances?

Turn on your speakers first...

http://evidence1.homestead.com/infinity.html

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Rader
Robots in the Cristian Church. Just what is that suppose to mean?
That sounds a little racist. No robots in the other churches?

What other churches are you referring to?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance...

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

 

[Rader]

robots

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What other churches are you referring to?

All of them. So cough it up what is meant by your statement?

 

[Rader]

Intellegent Design

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Visitor

I guess maybe pulling a rabbit out of a hat might convince you if the complexity of the natural world awes you so much.

The complexity of the NATURAL WORLD does not awe me but the simple reality of the old story about the pocket watch gives one reason to pause.

If you are walking in a field and come upon a stone, you might take it for granted that this rock has ALWAYS been there by pure chance. But if you are walking along and come upon a pocket watch, pick it up and say to yourself, 'well this has been here forever and is so complex that the absence of one small screw makes this watch non-functioning' then of course it was not made by any watchmaker.

The pocket watch was created by pure chance...

I don't believe in a statistical significance of -0 (10000) power.

There are pocket watches everywhere in the forest and it is not pure chance.