Can anyone prove the existence of God?

So you have concluded that the President can not be "proven" to exist without direct perception... and...??

Most people only perceive the President indirectly - but through a process that is known, understood, and one that rationally leads to being evidence for the existence of the President (note I said that it is evidence for, not proof of...). And it is the weight of such evidence that leads people who do not have direct perception to conclude that the President exists.

So what is the equivalent for God? Where is this indirect perception of God, and how does it rationally lead to conclusions of God's existence?

It is seemingly the utter lack of such rational evidence (i.e. evidence that rationally supports) for God's existence that it seems to become a case of direct perception or nothing.

And yes, one does need to have an understanding of the qualities of God, just as one does need to have an understanding of the qualities of the President. But if the President never utilised those qualities, how are we to know of his existence?
Therefore until God actually utilises the qualities by which it is identified...

If you then try to argue that God has already utilised his qualities (e.g. initiated life, if that is to be one such quality) then we again go back to the question of evidence to rationally support the claim not only that they have been utilised but also that God is the sole owner of such a quality. E.g. if a quality of God is that he started the Universe then you would need to provide evidence to support that the universe started (a given) but also that universe-starting is a quality that only God has.

And if your definition of God is the "cause of causes" or some such then you are unfortunately left with trying to provide evidence that everything had a cause. And good luck with that one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because the laptop screen is small and mostly I use the Google-translation

I carefully read what you wrote is my mistake, I misunderstood you.
Please forget,
"I take as an experiment, as a curiosity.
And such people exist in real life.
Is a test for me,
How am I doing under such conditions?"
I realize how crazy sounds.

I am agnostic so I do not say "No god"
There are many religion.I wanted to hear different opinions.
But for me this is not the main problem.
For that please read item 79
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2577411&postcount=79

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.

good answer, what's on the link
true, i respect all relegions, and that's what my relegion says, to respect all relegion, our prophet says, we have our god, we have our relegion, and you have your god, and you have your relegion, let's just be in peace,
but some people, ignorents effcorse, don't apply tht, i mean, some do hate some relegions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, some
and so am i, i'm ready to denfend about any relegion, i defended christianity once in an arabic forum, it's a topic just like the islam-attacking topics here, but that topic is being deleted, usually they don't allow relegion topics, or relegion issues topics, (in arabic forums i mean), anyway, so, you're not an atheist, and you're not a theist, you're between, you do beleive, and you do not beleive, and you want to know, why do people beleive in god, and you want to hear different opinion from many relegions, and from different people who have different intressts,
well, there's tons of prooves for me, but even if we didnt beleive in god, beleiving in god is better, because usually, if i didnt beleive in god, my life would have no sense, i would steel, i would do bad things, i would do any any thing, because i'll think that when i die, i'll just die, and disepear, and finish, but if you beleived in god, you'll have a goal, the goal is to be good, and to be affraid of god, so you don't do bad things, as for my relegion, who beleive in god, and who beleive in the relegion, and who affraid of god, always do good things, study hard, or work hard, because god created us to worship him, and to work, also not to ruen things, like destroying a tree for no reason, or killing a plant or an animal for no reason, or using water for no reason, so we would make sure we do good things, work hard, study hard, in islam, who have the chance to learn, and can learn, and he's not in hard cases that he couldn't, like in poor countries, but if he had the chance, and could, (or she effcorse) and he/she didnt, it's a sin, it's a sin not to learn and try to get knoledge,(if all muslims applied that, we be would already developed countries, but we are not very far of it, at least some of the arabic countries), why to beleive in god, to get a sense for your life, to think, that when you die, it wan't be over, so if you did good, searched for knoledge, worked, worshiped your god, you'll go to heaven, to a better place, but if you did bad things, then go to hell for ever, so he get affraid of doing bad things, affraid of god, but when he/she don't beleive in god, usually, they will have no goal, i mean, the goal is, to have the maximum fun they can get in life, and do and try everything, and anything, soem people, when they get despered, they sucide, but some people, who beleive in god, when they get decepered, they will think, i must continue, god will help me...

that's the sicologic part in humans.
and according to me, as a muslim, (just don't think we are fanatics or too relegious as you see on media) anyway, according to me, there are other things that keep pulling me to keep beleiving in god, like the tons of scientific facts that are in quran, because it mentions thins about the univerce(and alot other things, but i'm more interrested in univerce) and those things, are scientificly true, and they are facts...
...
that's for me.
so i think i showed my opinion

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I really find you interresting, and open minded, not like most of people in here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe in people, in humanity.
We still have much to learn, but if you look in history we know it evolved.
I think morality is a feature of humanitatii and not fear or reward you have to follow.
I am happy for "happy" believers, but I am angry to "angry" believers.
I hope you understand what I mean.


As you understand me,please read
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2566300&postcount=33

 

.

yes i understand you 100%

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you seems to be thinking like me, but you don't beleive in god, and i do beleive in god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes,and that I think the difference would not be on religion.
But to live in peace, each with his faith.
For that I opened this thread.

 

.

yes
we have oure relegion, and we worship our god, and you have your relegion, and you worship your god, or i think it was we have our relegion and our god and you have your relegion and your god, anyway, it's a call for peace for people from different faithes, that's what our prophet said.

also there's a verse of quran say that we(god/allah) made us from tribes and nations so we get know to each other=[call for divercity and peace]

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

relegion difference is not a problem, here doesnt matter your relegion, we don't know people according to their relegion.

 

Those are who I say "true believers" among whom I feel good.
But there are other 'believers'


http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2578603&postcount=341

 

.

hmm, it wasnt nececcery to tell me about that link, anyway, maybe we'll debate about it, later, or another day ^^

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

actually its more that the president is proven to exist (directly) when the seer conforms to certain criteria (that on the whole revolve around falling in to line with the values/interests of the president)

that's fine (actually one could say the same about god too)

For one who disregards such calls for evidence on the grounds that it is not direct (as an atheist does in their challenge over god's existence) it is neither here nor there however

I already gave the example that one can rationally conclude that somewhere someone is acting in the role of president if one can observe a community/nation that has functioning utilities, etc ... and that this is similar to the argument of intelligent design (and to which the atheist will quickly quip about a call for a lack of direct evidence as sufficient to rationalize some other conclusion - a conclusion which they also lack direct evidence I might add ...)

I think I have brought to your attention several times before that one brings issues of rationality and logic to a set of values. IOW its a fallacy to suggest that logic supports a singular set of values - the extensive range of arguments on sci - from star wars vs star trek to a personal vs a godless universe - clearly illustrate this.

Haven't we had this discussion before?
That in terms of cause and effect in the universe, the ultimate cause must necessarily be singular for as long as one is working out of a singular set as the context?

Even in empiricism, it is sometimes required to be familiar with the qualities of several things in order to be familiar with one in particular that stands as contingent or contextualizing several.
For instance a detailed discussion or critique of global warming requires not only more than just an observation of a thermometer, but also a compliance with certain procedures (for instance, even a calculation on global warming with the most up to date equipment and references doesn't look good if one one doesn't triangulate one's findings on numerous locations on the globe) .

In the same sense, a qualitative model of god encompasses a qualitative model of this phenomenal world and the living entity which renders the empirical model of evidence obsolete from the onset. IOW if you are already working out of the values that the universe is a chance arrangement of matter that gave rise to life (another value for which there is no direct evidence I might add), then one is situated in a way of seeing that doesn't reveal much.

For instance god is celebrated as displaying the universal form (or the ability to reveal to a living entity - who of course is situated in a localized aspect - to see everything and everywhere as existing through the localized aspect of god. There are references to god displaying this form to atheists who are not convinced of such displays (thinking them to be some sort of hallucination or mind control).
IOW such displays only evidence as much as the values encompass.

IOW a big problem with the issue is that the atheist insists on whatever qualitative model one has for god be evidenced through an empirical model (or a model that focuses on what one brings before the senses) when a model that focuses on how one utilizes one's senses (ie a model that focuses on the desire that drives the senses - or one's material conditioning) is what is recommended ... which in turn gives rise to a host of experiences that establishes the vocabulary for clarifying evidence for god.
IOW its kind of like trying to evidence a high end claim of physics through the language of primary school science.

The analogy of the president begins to illustrate this point.
I mean what do you think one is directly assessing in determining the evidence of the president?
Does one sit in on his diplomatic meetings to observe him in action?
Or even if one did sit in one, do you think they would be in a position to comprehend the nuanced details of a surcharged diplomatic meeting?

Or do you think that political science requires some setting iof the ground work for the personalities involved?

 

Intelligent design fails due to not being rationally based on the evidence. The evidence just simply does not lead to that conclusion - unless you argue from such fallacious positions as from incredulity, complexity etc.
It is not the lack of direct evidence... it is the lack of any rational route from the evidence to the conclusion.

So you have an unproven assumption at the core of your belief / mindset / claims. :shrug:

 

Unless you can indicate what evidence would be contradicted if intelligent design was proven, I don't think that is the case

not really.
If you are talking about a singular set arising from cause and effect, the cause must necessarily be singular

 

I once met the president of my country. It was kind of accidental, an outdoors event, I didn't know he would be there.

I had no idea what to say to him. I just greeted him and went on with my business.

 

Type louder.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.

lol
Does any one hear me?
what about now? lol

 

You miss the point.
ID is not the rational conclusion given the evidence.
If I plot two points, the rational course would be a straightline... ID is the equivalent of a curve.
So far there is zero evidence to support such curve over the rational straightline.

The assumption is not in the cause being singular, but in there being an ultimate cause.

 

... that's why I am asking you what evidence would be contradicted if ID was proven.

as opposed to the assumption that there isn't?

 

None.
It is a logical conclusion - just not rational, as explained.

But then no evidence contradicts the theory that the universe was farted out the backside of a giant floating space-turtle... it might even explain the smell

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is also entirely possible that the universe is only 6,000 years old and that God created it with all the fossils etc so that we might think it to be billions of years old.

No assumption... the matter is still unknown.
Again, some of us are happy to say "I don't know"... and some feel the need to fill the gap with "God". :shrug:

 

I think you used the words "rational given the evidence"

You still haven't coughed up any evidence

All you have done is talked of how rational you are
:shrug:

Well since you are saying "you don't know" instead of "I don't know" I guess you are not one of the happy ones

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This was in response to your question: "that's why I am asking you what evidence would be contradicted if ID was proven.".
So what evidence are you asking me to "cough up", given that I previously answered your question with "none"?
:shrug:

I am happy to say "I don't know" on the matter. Want me to say it again?

That you claim to know... care to share how you know - or is it just another of your assumptions?