Is there proof of a monotheistic God?

[Shantanu]

Then you recognize that evidence doesn't necessarily = proof. Good!

.

I do recognise that different people require different levels of evidence as proof: (Probability) P<0.05, or P<0.01, or P<0.0001: which do you subscribe to?

 

[Skwim]

I do recognise that different people require different levels of evidence as proof: (Probability) P<0.05, or P<0.01, or P<0.0001: which do you subscribe to?

Actually, I'm quite particular in the use of the term "proof." To me, proof only has meaning in mathematics, logic, and alcohol measurement.

The following comments about mathematical and logical proof are from Wikipedia

A proof is an argument from hypotheses (assumptions) to a conclusion. Each step of the argument follows the laws of logic. In mathematics, a statement is not accepted as valid or correct unless it is accompanied by a proof. This insistence on proof is one of the things that sets mathematics apart from other subjects.

In mathematics, a proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms, along with accepted rules of inference.

In logic a formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language), each of which is an axiom, an assumption, or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference.
​

While this may seem a bit pedantic, it came about because of the loose use of the word in issues outside of math and logic. People are often given to using it in any way they see fit, in effect depriving the word of any useful meaning. So, no matter how much evidence you may have pointing to the guilt or innocence of X, if X is outside math or logic it will never rise to the level of proof..

.

 

[Shantanu]

Actually, I'm quite particular in the use of the term "proof." To me, proof only has meaning in mathematics, logic, and alcohol measurement.

The following comments about mathematical and logical proof are from Wikipedia

A proof is an argument from hypotheses (assumptions) to a conclusion. Each step of the argument follows the laws of logic. In mathematics, a statement is not accepted as valid or correct unless it is accompanied by a proof. This insistence on proof is one of the things that sets mathematics apart from other subjects.

In mathematics, a proof is an inferential argument for a mathematical statement. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms, along with accepted rules of inference.

In logic a formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language), each of which is an axiom, an assumption, or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference.
​

While this may seem a bit pedantic, it came about because of the loose use of the word in issues outside of math and logic. People are often given to using it in any way they see fit, in effect depriving the word of any useful meaning. So, no matter how much evidence you may have pointing to the guilt or innocence of X, if X is outside math or logic it will never rise to the level of proof..

.

How can one organise an experiment on a grand scale where every person is following a set procedure to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation?

 

[Skwim]

How can one organise an experiment on a grand scale where every person is following a set procedure to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation?

Ya got me. In fact, I haven't the slightest idea of how an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation would be meaningful. What does it mean to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation?

.

.

 

[Shantanu]

Ya got me. In fact, I haven't the slightest idea of how an attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation would be meaningful. What does it mean to prove or disprove the existence of God through truth accommodation?

.

.

Truth accommodation means to seek truth constantly, and accept the new discoveries thereby accommodating oneself into them to reject all other preconceived notions. You do this through faith that a new truth will receive an affirmative or rejection message from God to whom one has approached in faith and devotion using a digital clock whereby the times seen is interpreted when added up to a Yes or a No on an action that is proposed; No 7 being an affirmative when seeing times like 2.41, 6.10, 9.07, 5.20 etc.

 

[Skwim]

Truth accommodation means to seek truth constantly, and accept the new discoveries thereby accommodating oneself into them to reject all other preconceived notions.

So by simply accepting new discoveries you could prove or disprove god. Obviously this would be a personal "proof." And, how do you know that some other "new discoveries" won't come along to change your mind? I suggest, you do not. So your so-called "proof" isn't really proof at all.

.

 

[Shantanu]

So by simply accepting new discoveries you could prove or disprove god. Obviously this would be a personal "proof." And, how do you know that some other "new discoveries" won't come along to change your mind? I suggest, you do not. So your so-called "proof" isn't really proof at all.

.

The end product of this experiment is that one becomes God so that one is infallible and perfect in all ones actions to survive with dignity.

 

[Skwim]

The end product of this experiment is that one becomes God so that one is infallible and perfect in all ones actions to survive with dignity.

So, are you perfect yet? Do you know anyone who's perfect.

.

 

[Shantanu]

So, are you perfect yet? Do you know anyone who's perfect.

.

If I was not perfect I would be caught out by any number of people.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

It seems that @YeshuaBought has given up on the thread, but thinking about this more...

It's struck me before that trying to prove monotheism has all the problems proving theism as well as all the problems of proving hard atheism. When you think about it, proving monotheism would really come down to proving two separate claims:

- gods exist in general, AND
- no more than one god exists

No sir. I was sick. I am dealing with seasonal depression and would love to keep this debate going.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No sir. I was sick. I am dealing with seasonal depression and would love to keep this debate going.

Great. I await you arguments for why exactly one god exists... for why not only are gods possible, but for why no more than one god exists, despite gods being possible.

 

[Shantanu]

Great. I await you arguments for why exactly one god exists... for why not only are gods possible, but for why no more than one god exists, despite gods being possible.

Evolution has made it possible to have billions of gods and goddesses.

 

[gnostic]

Is there proof of a monotheistic God?

I have never seen any equation or formula that define any god.

So to answer your question about proof of god, it is a definite “no”.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution has made it possible to have billions of gods and goddesses.

God or gods have nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is about biology - it is about change in biological life through passing genetic traits of such changes to the next generations, to descendants.

Evolution is all natural. No supernatural, no magic and no miracles involved in these changes/evolution.

 

[Shantanu]

God or gods have nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is about biology - it is about change in biological life through passing genetic traits of such changes to the next generations, to descendants.

Evolution is all natural. No supernatural, no magic and no miracles involved in these changes/evolution.

Have you come across this?

Consciousness Energy of the Universe
9 Jan
I have postulated that the energy of the universe is two-fold: physical energy and consciousness energy. The physical energy is the light and heat generation while the consciousness energy describes life and all movement. Matter is produced from a combination of both these energies.

Consciousness energy has two components, that which gives life force and that which gives soul force. The life force is what gives atoms, compounds, cells, organs and organisms their movement. Life force for atoms and compounds is their chemical energy involved in the orbiting of electrons around atoms and the inorganic and organic bonding of atoms of different elements. In living organisms consciousness energy permeates the entire body and is responsible for the organism’s internal and external activities for living. The life force in biological systems is activated at birth and inactivated at death with changes detected by the DNA switching on this consciousness energy for biological living to begin, and similarly, DNA-associated instructions from cellular changes switching the life force off for the organism’s dying. The soul force causes the nerve impulses in the body to respond to external and internal (cellular, tissue and organ) changes as stimuli for protective action to be taken by the body.

In highly evolved animals with a central nervous system the brain detects the soul force of the consciousness energy in the centre called the mind. The soul force imparts thoughts and beliefs by virtue of its guna consciousness energy triad of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic properties. The mind selects the gunas from the soul and is affected by those gunas as directives on the basis of the genetics of the animal and its upbringing to generate thoughts that the body then acts on.

 

[ecco]

Question: "Is there any conclusive proof of God?"

Which God? Atlas, Zeus, Shenga, Shiva? You need to be more specific in stating your question.

Proof of God: The Law of Cause and Effect. This law of science states that every cause has its effect and every effect has its cause.

When you have decided which God, you now need to specify what caused your specified God.

 

[gnostic]

Have you come across this?

Consciousness Energy of the Universe
9 Jan
I have postulated that the energy of the universe is two-fold: physical energy and consciousness energy. The physical energy is the light and heat generation while the consciousness energy describes life and all movement. Matter is produced from a combination of both these energies.

Consciousness energy has two components, that which gives life force and that which gives soul force. The life force is what gives atoms, compounds, cells, organs and organisms their movement. Life force for atoms and compounds is their chemical energy involved in the orbiting of electrons around atoms and the inorganic and organic bonding of atoms of different elements. In living organisms consciousness energy permeates the entire body and is responsible for the organism’s internal and external activities for living. The life force in biological systems is activated at birth and inactivated at death with changes detected by the DNA switching on this consciousness energy for biological living to begin, and similarly, DNA-associated instructions from cellular changes switching the life force off for the organism’s dying. The soul force causes the nerve impulses in the body to respond to external and internal (cellular, tissue and organ) changes as stimuli for protective action to be taken by the body.

In highly evolved animals with a central nervous system the brain detects the soul force of the consciousness energy in the centre called the mind. The soul force imparts thoughts and beliefs by virtue of its guna consciousness energy triad of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic properties. The mind selects the gunas from the soul and is affected by those gunas as directives on the basis of the genetics of the animal and its upbringing to generate thoughts that the body then acts on.

What you referred to as consciousness energy as “life force” is the same as those you labelled as physical energy.

Cells, organs and organism are all can be broken down to atoms, molecules and compounds, all of which are matters, which in term, have masses...there it is all “physical”.

What you referred to as “light”, have dual properties of particles (eg photons) and waves (ie electromagnetic waves, visible light, ultraviolet, infrared, microwaves, radio waves, etc).

Light are often emitted from charged matters, for instance, the electric current passing through coiled wire in the basic light bulb, will generate heat and emit light.

Or the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom at the Sun’s core, will generate tremendous amount of heat to the outer layers, enough to cause the sun’s surface to incandescent the hydrogen plasma. The incandescence of the surface plasma will generate heat, light and ultraviolet.

My point is that light doesn’t emit and propagate from absolutely nothing. It required a physical source like the light bulb, matches and fuel plus oxygen, or the stars.

As to the consciousness energy, I have come across these claims before, here on this forum and from the web, but so far it is nothing more New Age pseudoscience nonsense.

 

[Shantanu]

What you referred to as consciousness energy as “life force” is the same as those you labelled as physical energy.

Cells, organs and organism are all can be broken down to atoms, molecules and compounds, all of which are matters, which in term, have masses...there it is all “physical”.

What you referred to as “light”, have dual properties of particles (eg photons) and waves (ie electromagnetic waves, visible light, ultraviolet, infrared, microwaves, radio waves, etc).

Light are often emitted from charged matters, for instance, the electric current passing through coiled wire in the basic light bulb, will generate heat and emit light.

Or the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium atom at the Sun’s core, will generate tremendous amount of heat to the outer layers, enough to cause the sun’s surface to incandescent the hydrogen plasma. The incandescence of the surface plasma will generate heat, light and ultraviolet.

My point is that light doesn’t emit and propagate from absolutely nothing. It required a physical source like the light bulb, matches and fuel plus oxygen, or the stars.

As to the consciousness energy, I have come across these claims before, here on this forum and from the web, but so far it is nothing more New Age pseudoscience nonsense.

Observations of humanity and the natural world require theories on the construction of the universe that are without flaws.

 

[ecco]

Observations of humanity and the natural world require theories on the construction of the universe that are without flaws.

Why do you believe that? Are you asserting that if theories have minor flaws they are completely wrong?

Surely your religion makes observations of humanity and the natural world. Can you state unequivocally, that the theories espoused by your religion are without flaws?

 

[Shantanu]

Why do you believe that? Are you asserting that if theories have minor flaws they are completely wrong?

Surely your religion makes observations of humanity and the natural world. Can you state unequivocally, that the theories espoused by your religion are without flaws?

Yes if theories have even a chink of a flaw they are completely wrong; and yes my theory exposed by my religion is without any flaws.