Does God really exist? I want to know your views.

[Trailblazer]

So, the real question is what probability to be true do you require before saying you have a belief.

That's it exactly. It is all about probability because nobody can ever prove a belief is true.

 

[Cooky]

Does God really exist?

I just asked him to reveal himself to me... I got no response. I wish he would just do it for crying out loud.

...I hate secrecy.

 

[Cooky]

But no, I would hate it if all the deceitful people have been getting their way, while all the brownie points I've accumulated end up worthless.

I've spent an entire lifetime at the service of others, when I could have been satisfying myself, while jerks, who are less intelligent -- I've been humoring them out of "kindness".

 

[PruePhillip]

I agree that proof is private and not corporate, but I do not agree that proof must be gained through personal experience.
Proof might also be gained through evidence of God's existence.

Often say, re Noah Ark "discovery."
If I stumbled upon such an archaeological treasure I would be tempted to
destroy it. Believers believe, disbelievers disbelieve - you don't change
anyone's mind through "proof". For every "proof" there will be a "disproof."

 

[Cooky]

I struggle with this always. I have no answer. I believe. It is enough for me. I just know enough, not to use my belief as an answer to questions of the physical world.

Don't be so sure that it matters what answers laypeople have in regards to the physical world. The only benefit for laypeople would be involving the voter, but there will be no candidate one could vote for, who would place religious beliefs over science... Not in this country and not at this time.

 

[Cooky]

For every "proof" there will be a "disproof."

Can you disprove that 2+2=4..?

 

[PruePhillip]

1. What sense does it make sense to say that causality is caused? That seems to be self-defeating.

2. Why do you assume a 'who' is involved? That seems *very* unlikely.

3. Whether there is anything outside of the universe depends on exactly how you define 'the universe'. It is common in physics to define it to be the current expansion phase, but then allow for a multiverse. The usual concept would put the physicists' multiverse as the universe.

So, if the universe is 'everything', then there is nothing outside of it. If, instead, the multiverse is 'everything', then the stuff outside the universe is the rest of the multiverse. Causality would then make sense, potentially, in the multiverse. Although that is not guaranteed.

And we wind up on this merry-go-round. Truth is - we don't know.
But I hold that the totality of all physics (whatever you call it) had
to come from non-physics. And it had to have a reason.
Lots of science folk (and I am one) hold that an infinite universe,
a big bang, a multi-verse etc is enough. They are content to not
think about it further - science has given half an answer and they
have faith it will one day find the other half, despite this other half
lying outside of science.

 

[PruePhillip]

Can you disprove that 2+2=4..?

I am sure you can, but I am not a mathematician. On a number line going two places
past two lands you on four - I think. "Proof" is a dodgy thing.

 

[Cooky]

And we wind up on this merry-go-round. Truth is - we don't know.
But I hold that the totality of all physics (whatever you call it) had
to come from non-physics. And it had to have a reason.
Lots of science folk (and I am one) hold that an infinite universe,
a big bang, a multi-verse etc is enough. They are content to not
think about it further - science has given half an answer and they
have faith it will one day find the other half, despite this other half
lying outside of science.

They can't find the second half until they're certain on the first half, which they're not.

 

[Cooky]

I am sure you can, but I am not a mathematician. On a number line going two places
past two lands you on four - I think. "Proof" is a dodgy thing.

Going two places past two on a numberline lands you on four every time... Nothing too dodgy about that.

 

[PruePhillip]

Going two places past two on a numberline lands you on four every time... Nothing too dodgy about that.

Sure. Don't doubt that. But sometimes proof isn't really proof at all. What is considered proof
to some is nothing more than scientific consensus.
You no doubt have heard this one:

An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician were on a train heading north, and had just crossed the border into Scotland.

• The engineer looked out of the window and said "Look! Scottish sheep are black!"
• The physicist said, "No, no. Some Scottish sheep are black."
• The mathematician looked irritated. "There is at least one field, containing at least one sheep, of which at least one side is black."

 

[PruePhillip]

Can you disprove that 2+2=4..?

An engineer, a physicist, and a computer scientist were discussing what was the oldest profession.

• The engineer claimed priority. "Look at all that matter engineered into amazing constructs like galaxies, stars, and planets."
• The physicist disagreed. "Before there were planets, the matter had to be made from chaos. Physics is responsible for all the quarks, gluons, photons, and electrons."
• The computer scientist coughed modestly. "Ah, but where do you think the chaos came from?"

 

[Trailblazer]

I just asked him to reveal himself to me... I got no response. I wish he would just do it for crying out loud.

...I hate secrecy.

God is not much of a talker, and He just loves secrecy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Believers believe, disbelievers disbelieve - you don't change
anyone's mind through "proof". For every "proof" there will be a "disproof."

That's true, sadly enough.

 

[atanu]

Well, all of the evidence we have suggests that a brain is required for a person to have thoughts. If that notion bothers you for some reason, we can go ahead and just say that I require verifiable evidence and don't see the logic in believing anything without evidence. Why would you believe something when you have no verifiable evidence that it's true? .

It does not bother me a bit that a brain is required for a particular way of cognition — even as it does not surprise me that a resistance is required to manifest electricity as light or as heat etc.

But without a consciousness who has ever seen a body or a brain? And that consciousness is not intrinsic to a physical form — a body etc., will be clear to you once you see a dead body in which the brain does not say “I am”.

...

 

[QuestioningMind]

It does not bother me a bit that a brain is required for a particular way of cognition — even as it does not surprise me that a resistance is required to manifest electricity as light or as heat etc.

But without a consciousness who has ever seen a body or a brain? And that consciousness is not intrinsic to a physical form — a body etc., will be clear to you once you see a dead body in which the brain does not say “I am”.

...

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that consciousness is not dependent upon a physical living brain? Can you provide an example of a verifiable consciousness that exists or has existed without a physical living brain? The fact that the brain of a dead body can't say "I am," indicates that a living physical brain is a requirement for consciousness.

Making a completely unsubstantiated claim is worthless.

 

[chinu]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that consciousness is not dependent upon a physical living brain? Can you provide an example of a verifiable consciousness that exists or has existed without a physical living brain? The fact that the brain of a dead body can't say "I am," indicates that a living physical brain is a requirement for consciousness.

Making a completely unsubstantiated claim is worthless.

Consciousness/soul is like an electric current that is required to run a computer.
Whereas, brain is like a certain-program in the computer.

There's also a third thing called "Mind"
Mind is like a programmer.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Don't be so sure that it matters what answers laypeople have in regards to the physical world. The only benefit for laypeople would be involving the voter, but there will be no candidate one could vote for, who would place religious beliefs over science... Not in this country and not at this time.

I place religioues belief over science any day, that said, i do not say science does not work, but only in this physical realm we live in, due to the physical law in this Cosmos.

 

[Polymath257]

And we wind up on this merry-go-round. Truth is - we don't know.
But I hold that the totality of all physics (whatever you call it) had
to come from non-physics. And it had to have a reason.

And I would say that asking for a 'reason' or 'cause' for natural laws is
self-defeating. Causality requires time and the natural laws to operate.
And it does always hold.

Lots of science folk (and I am one) hold that an infinite universe,
a big bang, a multi-verse etc is enough. They are content to not
think about it further - science has given half an answer and they
have faith it will one day find the other half, despite this other half
lying outside of science.

I don't think it *is* half an answer. I think that asking for more is part
of the problem. It is, from what I can see, a fundamental misunderstanding
of the nature of causality.

Many people think that causality is fundamental: that every thing needs
a reason to exist. I see existence as fundamental: some things simply exist.
And I see causality as a property of some things that exist.

In particular, I believe the universe (including all space and time and, potentially the multiverse) simply exists. It isn't caused because time and laws of nature only make sense within it, not outside of it.

 

[Polymath257]

I am sure you can, but I am not a mathematician. On a number line going two places
past two lands you on four - I think. "Proof" is a dodgy thing.

Proof, in math, is NOT a 'dodgy thing'. But you have to clearly state your assumptions.

2+2=4 in any system for which those symbols make sense. But, of course, you have to define them.

Here are the basics:
1. Sx means the successor of x. This is an undefined term.
2. 1 is given. It can be anything, we just use the symbol.
3. We define 2=S1, 3=S2, and 4=S3.
4. We assume x+1=Sx for all x
5. We assume x+Sy =S(x+y) for all x and y.

We also assume rules for the = symbol. Primarily x=y and y=z implies x=z.

Then, 2+2=2+S1=S(2+1)=SS2=S3=4.

So, any time those 5 assumptions and definitions hold, we have 2+2=4.