Proof of the existence of God

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jason.Marshall, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Jan is so afraid of even acknowledging the possibility that there might not be a God that it might bring Jan's entire world crashing down to even think it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    This is a copy of something I wrote in another thread, but it is relevant to the discussion here:

    The point has been made to Jan Ardena a number of times in a different thread that defining a thing in a particular way doesn't mean that thing is real. If I define ArkFunkle as the little pixie who lives in my computer and makes it work, the evidence that my computer works does not prove the existence of Arkfunkle.

    The problem is that Arkfunkle is not understood merely as "whatever it is that makes my computer work". If that was all Arkfunkle was supposed to be, then we could say that my cutesy name "Arkfunkle" is really just a mask for my lack of understanding of electricity, energy, integrated circuitry and other relevant areas of science. For people who know about these things, the term "Arkfunkle" becomes an unhelpful irrelevancy in the discussion of what makes my computer work.

    But my definition of Arkfunkle also says specifically that he is a little pixie. The notion of what a pixie is already exists out there in the world, and I've referred implicitly to that. When I say "pixie", I expect you to import your prior understanding what pixies are and what they do and how they do it. So, what I've really done is to illegitimately try to sneak a whole lot of extra assumptions under the radar with my definition of Arkfunkle.

    Jan, of course, is doing exactly the same thing with his definition of God as the "original cause".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    James' post 962 is clear demonstration that telling the postulated characteristics and abilities of "god" to do things we know happen /exist is NOT proof that god is doing those things / causing them to happen /exist; Unless there are observable things for which no physical explanation exist. Then, by default, one can presume that a god (or specialized gods, as in earlier days) exist to do them / cause the observables without any physical explanation, but that explains nothing - only gives a name to the cause(s) we lack a scientific understanding of.

    As I noted here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/proof-of-the-existence-of-god.144082/page-46#post-3318005
    There is no physically known mechanism (Not that I am aware of anyway) that explains how a huge numbers of electrons get separated by great distances from their neutralizing positive charges. I.e. how do clouds get to have millions of volts potential different from the ground below them? IE what is the force mechanism that over powers the strongest force of attraction known, the inverse square electric force, to separated the charges?

    This is an observable fact, without physical explanation AFAIK. So until some one can supply a plausible physical explanation, I like the old one:
    The powerful Thor separates the charges and hurls the lightening bolts. More observational support for Thor than for Jan Ardena's God exists.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I'm not postulating that God is real because of the universal definition.
    I've consistently pointed out that regardless of whether or not God is real, God is defined as the original cause/creator of the material world. Get over it.

    jan.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    That is wise as there is no "universal definition" not even within the limited (and minor division of humanity) that call them selves: "Christians"
    Perhaps by 10% of all humans. Do you have any data supporting your POV?

    Almost all scientifically informed, think matter was created when the universe had expanded and cooled enough for quarks to be formed from the high energy density in accord with m = E/(C^2); and not by some agent called "God." This was the first demonstration that energy, E, changes form in quantative steps.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2015
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    This god thing , concept or what ever you want to call it , lacks depth of thought.

    There is god as in the Abrahamic religions and there is the Universe religion , where the Universe has a Universal god. Or being , to my mind, rather than a god.

    The first is based on fear , the second is based on understanding
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I agree, but you are showing your hidden assumptions (one God) instead of many specialized gods, like most of humanity has believed exist for most of human existence.
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Agreed

    And that there was the balance of male and female

    I like your post Billy T.

    river
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    If we can conceive of sentient gods who willed everything into existence merely by a wave of his hand, why is it so difficult to imagine that a natural "instability" could not have been the creative causality?

    I don't care what you want to call the causality, but to assign sentience, motivation, will, and emotions, seems way over the top of speculation. Just think of the garbage attached to such an assumption. How would all that work?

    If there ever was an occasion to apply Ockham's razor, this would be the most fundamental, IMO.

    Gods (unknown causalities) have existed since the dawn of hominids, who assigned a god to every unexplainable natural event, such as thunder, lightning, rain, etc.

    Why do we persist in this idea, when all gods responsible for natural events have been debunked? What is the compelling reason for persisting in the assumption of a causal god to the natural event of the BB (by any other name)?

    IMO, this is a psychological need for all sentient things to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (the mother of greed), the desire and expectation of immortality. The hope of becoming gods ourselves.
     
    spidergoat and Billy T like this.
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    So you're saying CHRISTians who worship Jesus Christ, accepting him as this universal definition, or that his Father (whom he claims this definition as truth), isn't the very ''definition''?
    You are joking aren't you?

    I don't need supporting data. I'm okay if you don't accept it.

    I'm happy fo' ya'll.

    jan.
     
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    ...

    The brainwasher, and the brainwashee.
    You don't get to see that too often, out in the open.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    No, not joking, only noting there is great controversy among various divisions of Christian.

    For example many think you can not be saved unless baptized (although some make exceptions for those good people who had no opportunity to be baptized. for example died before Christ was born, or lived in remote regions, where few have heard of Christ.) Likewise what constitutes "baptisms" is disputed. One large subdivision, thinks only it your whole body is submerged in water are you "baptized" so none of the other Christians who just have a few drops of water sprinkled on the head can be saved (enter the kingdom of heaven).

    Another big division is about the need for and capabilities of one person, called the Pope, and whether or not you can be forgiven for sins with out going to confessional his subordinates staff to have them "absolved."

    Some believe it an obligation to give 10% of your income to their church.

    Some believe abortion is a sin, others only if it "late term"

    More division as to what is fundamental to Christianity and necessary for "salvation" exist.

    Is the bread and wine transformed or only symbolic of the blood and body of Christ?

    SUMMARY: Christianity is far from one set of ESSENTIAL beliefs - not universal as you assert.
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yes, not all who worship Jesus are Christians. You have to believe that he is the son of god, he died for your sins, and rose on the third day, and if you accept him into your heart, you are saved and forgiven of sin. It's a pretty well defined set of beliefs.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Wrong of course. Hirohito was considered a god to the Japanese people. Most ancient European kings were considered divinities, as well as the Czar of Russia.
     
  18. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    A universal definition of the real and true living God and not the false ones would be as a conscious spirit that manifests no particular form unless it wants to. God = Universe. Now, if I touch myself does that mean I feel less divine and more human? Absolutely. However none of that fazes my knowledge of a universal consciousness that is all good and all knowing even though I haven't seen empirical evidence for Him in almost a year, I would still never forget the evidence of His manifestations that can be explained by Quantum Mechanics as nothing, including God, is beyond scientific explanation.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Right, some electric lights got less bright. Praise Him.

    And your definition is isn't universal.
     
  20. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    They didn't just get less bright you silly goat. They continually responded to my thoughts getting brighter and darker, darker and brighter. Not only that birds were chirping to each and every blink of my eyes. This clearly indicates that the universe is some sort of overmind.

    Why are you in disagreement with it?
     
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I just cited several examples of people being worshiped as gods. I'm suggesting that gods as immaterial concepts could be a relatively recent phenomenon.
     
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    2000 years ago none were immaterial. Diana is the Roman Goddess of the moon, as well as of animals, nature, and the hunt. She is the equivalent of the Greek Goddess Artemis, ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'll worship her, any day. If you prefer the immaterial, that is your choice.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2015
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Yes, for example. I think Diana was believed to reside physically on Mt. Olympus.
     

Share This Page