Is all of existence proof of God's existence?

[Unveiled Artist]

science!.....as I point my index to the ceiling

cause and effect is an absolute.....so I believe
and science is thought play without that foundation

so....the sun as creation?.....yeah
and substance as dead material does not beget more of the same

science would have you believe.....and I do....
ALL of this reality came from one location

and nothing moves without Something to set it into motion

can I explain to you the act of creation?......not yet
I will be asking God.....How did you do that?

if my frame of mind and heart display the ability to receive....
then maybe I will fulfill that scripture....
ye ARE gods

Uh. Break it down.

How can you see god in the sun rising without you thinking this true into existence based on the influences I've already listed?

 

[Thief]

If you had no preknowledge, culture influence, assumptions based on healthy bias, and/or believing what you are told, our concept and origin of the "explanation of reality " (In this case god) is all from your mind.

you mean this list?....^

yeah sure....someone told when I was younger.....
God created all

and as a small boy leaning on the window sill
out of bed late at night....

I looked all about the outside...and said to myself
if God created all of this, then He is truly wonderful

that is as far back as my memory goes
my first 'solid' thought

prior to that...nothing but snap shots of things seen and felt

but don't assume my belief is simple instruction
I excelled in my science studies
and never saw any excuse to dismiss the existence of God

as per my previous post.....science points to heaven

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I excelled in my science studies
and never saw any excuse to dismiss the existence of God

Um. This is confirmed bias. Without the list you mentioned, you would have no reason to think up god among all other things and gods that could have created this universe.

 

[exchemist]

For many theists, their belief in God is based on all of reality being evidence for the existence of God. Forget science. Forget scientific method. Theists are not concerned with devices used to take simple measurements of reality. Theists are only concerned with measuring everything all at once in one breath. Theists are mostly concerned with talking about one single measurement. And that one single measurement is an appreciation of everything in reality. There is nothing objective about how we feel about reality. There is no device we can use to measure our feelings about reality. Either we appreciate reality as being something profound and meaningful, or, we do not. For people who appreciate reality as being deeply profound and meaningful in their life, the measure of all reality can only be accurately and completely represented by one and only one word. And that word is God. Any other words we used to represent reality, whether it is sets of mathematics or waxing poetics, all fall short and are incomplete representations of something always beyond simple representations. Reality is always much bigger than any words we use to talk about it. God is the only word with the representational power to accurately reflect the meaning behind the most deeply profound experience some theists have when they experience reality. So for theist, God not only exists, because reality exists, but God is the only fully meaningful explanation for what we experience as reality.

This question has exercised a number of people, it seems: Problem of why there is anything at all - Wikipedia

but it not does not seem as if "God" was the answer, for most of them.

 

[Thief]

Um. This is confirmed bias. Without the list you mentioned, you would have no reason to think up god among all other things and gods that could have created this universe.

nothing moves without Something to move it

substance is not....self....motivated

dead material does not beget the living

science does not yet offer explanation for a great many things
yet science is willing to believe what cannot be proven
such as dark energy
dark matter

if science can believe for the sake of indications
what's holding you back?

 

[DustyFeet]

I am not sure I could add much, but maybe . . .

The nature of our physical existence is as it it is, and yes it reflects the attributes of God, but not our own justification for God. The question from the human perspective is, of course, which God do want to justify as existing based on the nature of our physical existence from the human perspective?

Science and the scientific method is how humanity understands Creation and the attributes of God in our physical existence, but it is not how nor the why we believe in God. The problem with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is they are grounded in ancient scripture, the culture of different religions, and ancient concepts of God, ie Genesis, not compatible with science, and the nature of our physical existence as it is.

thank you, shunaydragon

 

[DustyFeet]

But how does it exist outside your thoughts?

i feel like "coincidences" are little "miracles" not necessarily evidence of G-d. but for me, it was a start.

 

[DustyFeet]

science!.....as I point my index to the ceiling

cause and effect is an absolute.....so I believe
and science is thought play without that foundation

so....the sun as creation?.....yeah
and substance as dead material does not beget more of the same

science would have you believe.....and I do....
ALL of this reality came from one location

and nothing moves without Something to set it into motion

can I explain to you the act of creation?......not yet
I will be asking God.....How did you do that?

if my frame of mind and heart display the ability to receive....
then maybe I will fulfill that scripture....
ye ARE gods

magnificent!

 

[Thief]

magnificent!

thank you

 

[Unveiled Artist]

i feel like "coincidences" are little "miracles" not necessarily evidence of G-d. but for me, it was a start.

I can see that. That's what I feel a lot of gods blessings are coincidences. Very heavy ones. It depends on the person what or who if any they attribute these experiences to.

 

[Axe Elf]

I accept your choice as your choice. Nihilism is very popular nowadays.

My choice? You asked a question and I gave you the answer.

I can recognize the fact that all of existence is not proof of God's existence without being a nihilist, you know.

 

[BilliardsBall]

For many theists, their belief in God is based on all of reality being evidence for the existence of God. Forget science. Forget scientific method. Theists are not concerned with devices used to take simple measurements of reality. Theists are only concerned with measuring everything all at once in one breath. Theists are mostly concerned with talking about one single measurement. And that one single measurement is an appreciation of everything in reality. There is nothing objective about how we feel about reality. There is no device we can use to measure our feelings about reality. Either we appreciate reality as being something profound and meaningful, or, we do not. For people who appreciate reality as being deeply profound and meaningful in their life, the measure of all reality can only be accurately and completely represented by one and only one word. And that word is God. Any other words we used to represent reality, whether it is sets of mathematics or waxing poetics, all fall short and are incomplete representations of something always beyond simple representations. Reality is always much bigger than any words we use to talk about it. God is the only word with the representational power to accurately reflect the meaning behind the most deeply profound experience some theists have when they experience reality. So for theist, God not only exists, because reality exists, but God is the only fully meaningful explanation for what we experience as reality.

How can your conclusion be right, since you began from false premises? I never stopped believing inductively observed science is best:

a) Form a hypothesis, be it about something scientific, moral or religious
b) Assuming the hypothesis is true, test for expected outcomes

 

[Unveiled Artist]

yeah sure....someone told when I was younger.....
God created all

Yes. Many people are told (doesnt need to be instruction) when they were young. When they grow older, they, like most children, take what they learn to make sense out of life. Some teens move on to something else. Others stick with what makes sense to them. Its natural part of human growth.

It does not make god exist. Your upbringing and views makup (is built up of) the existence of god. Without these things youd be like me, no god influence whatsoever. Facts arent bias.

I looked all about the outside...and said to myself if God created all of this, then He is truly wonderful

I can see that following what you were told and identified as true for yourself. If you are someone like me, you look up and say... okay.... and god is, where?

but don't assume my belief is simple instruction. I excelled in my science studies and never saw any excuse to dismiss the existence of God

God proves science; science doesnt prove god.

Without being predisposed to god (and one creator or god at that!), knowing how earth revolves around the sun and when dinasours roam the earth doesnt show god. They are very isolated events from any supernatural cause. Those causes or origins are from you; your truth; your mind.

as per my previous post.....science points to heaven

How?

I know why. Science can prove itself true by science. How does science prove heaven?

Which heaven? Christian? Buddhist? Hindu? (Case in point) I understand the psychological concept of knowing their is a creator but knowing which??

Thats all you.

nothing moves without Something to move it

No. Things move unto itself. You say you study science? How does energy (keeping it is simple) move on its own? Does it?

I mean, from what I know, energy is the source, origin, and movement of all things. Nothing is static just we think it is (case in point). What you did was confirmation bias. Its an assumption of truth based on what you already know and grown up with. If someone moved energy, other science would have picked it up. Science isnt biased.

substance is not....self....motivated

Hence why its not from god. It just is.

dead material does not beget the living

Basically. Everything is "living"... energy, atoms, I dont know, organisms (you get my point?) That doesnt mean its from god. Just because X doesnt mean Y, doesnt mean the correct problem is 2 plus Z. (Yes. I know it doesnt make sense. See where Im coming from?)

science does not yet offer explanation for a great many things
yet science is willing to believe what cannot be proven
such as dark e

Yes. But that doesnt mean the answer of god as the placeholder of what science cant explain. There is a term for that. I cant think of the name.

if science can believe for the sake of indications what's holding you back?

Me? Im not a science person. Im an artist. I see beauty in a lot of things I wish I can draw, paint, and write about. I do understand these things are not depended on my mind to exist. Beauty, yes it does. One persons work of art is another persons trash. (One persons sun risng from god is another persons earth revolving around the sun) But that doesnt change how I/we feel.

Just because it comes from my mind doesnt make it less important than knowing it is part of a god somewhere. Depends on the person. Science isnt bias.

Confirmation bias, also known as Observational selection or The enumeration of favorable circumstances is the tendency for people to (consciously or unconsciously) seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them, both positive and negative. Confirmation bias - RationalWiki

In other words, someone told you god exist and created everything. You grew up with that knowledge. Every coinsdence, moving of the earth, even how you breathe comes from god. Not because god does exist but because you already have preknowledge. Whatever contradicts that knowlege, you ignore naturaly. Those you take in (say the part of science you connect with) are those that you feel is true to your prior knowledge.

Its an interesting way humans think of things. If youre into science, psychology is a good field to understand the mind in relation to our religion. There is also neurotheology, but not an exact science. Probably because it challenges the validity of religious belief via science (challenges the bias) so its disregarded.

Edited

 

[Quintessence]

While I take issue with some of the framing of the OP, the core of what it gets at is spot on. Terms like "god" (or other similar ones) are in many ways place holders for the sublime, ineffable, awe-inspiring nature of things we witness around us. They are things that make us pause and go "that there is worthy of worship" or "that there is sacred." We put a word to it, but truly? There are no words that can capture it. It is why some do not speak names of the gods, for it is an attempt to circumscribe that which cannot be circumscribed. The gods are too grand for our human boxes and categories.

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept your choice as your choice. Nihilism is very popular nowadays.

I believe your over stating Nihilism in this case. How do you see Nihilism as applied here?

 

[Revoltingest]

Existence is proof of existence.
But the proposed origins of existence aren't proven by this.

 

[Revoltingest]

They are things that make us pause and go "that there is worthy of worship" or "that there is sacred."

Some of us have a different experience.
"That is interesting, & worthy of investigation."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some of us have a different experience.
"That is interesting, & worthy of investigation."

Many of us have experiences that confirm what is sacred we/people label as god. We dont just use god in a valcuum. So each of our experiences confirm why we think existence and origin are worthy of worship.

 

[Quintessence]

Some of us have a different experience.
"That is interesting, & worthy of investigation."

Such experiences are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I find it impossible to go "that's awesome" and then not go "I want to know more about that" in the same breath. The same is probably true of most people, hence the study of nature was in no small part inspired by wanting to study God's creation (for the Christians at that time).

 

[Revoltingest]

Such experiences are not mutually exclusive. Personally, I find it impossible to go "that's awesome" and then not go "I want to know more about that" in the same breath. The same is probably true of most people, hence the study of nature was in no small part inspired by wanting to study God's creation (for the Christians at that time).

I just don't experience the desire to worship things.