Proof of God(s)?

[kerravon]

Well what I'm going to say isn't new but this question isn't new either. What proof is there about not being any form of God, Creator or higher power? None whatsoever! There is no evidence or scientific discovery that disproves a God existing.

Well, one thing that kept me a strong atheist for decades was the fact that there was so much suffering in the world, and if there was a god, he was a sadistic **** that I didn't want to have anything to do with. At the time I couldn't conceive that it could all so easily be faked as part of a computer simulation. I didn't think of the potential for philosophical zombies either.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Right. With all our technology we can't even create a living cell,

Do you know how to create a living cell? If you don't, why would you presume that our current level of technology should produce a living cell? I don't understand this argument at all because it seems like you are inferring that life cannot be created by humans while simultaneously expecting that we should have already creating life.... :/

yet atheists require that life be created purely by accident.

Really? Why would it be created by accident? If anything it would be a by-product of the universe and the forces that govern the universe. I don't understand why so many theists misrepresent atheists in this way. Is it intentional misrepresentation or do you honestly think atheists think it's an "accident"? An accident would require a volitional being, so you couldn't be talking about atheists.

Unlikely. Plus the other evidence.

What other evidence? Is it unlikely or impossible? I really don't know what you think on the matter, the way you presented the first part of this response made it look like you think it impossible without a God, but if you think it is unlikely, what point were you trying to make earlier?

 

[filthy tugboat]

the evidence is seen in the organization of the universe and the laws of nature

Seen by who? I certainly don't see it.

chaos will produce a random mess....not order

Good thing the universe is not chaotic. If anything it is ordered, it follows universal laws to the T.

there is no way that the forces of nature can produce life...they simply cannot.

Could you support this assertion with evidence?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Jinse,

Can you blame someone who does not know of any *God* because there is *no* sufficient evidence? Exactly the reason why I doubt if there is *God* most of the time.

You are still missing! have none to blame as there is no other.
God is or not is not a matter for debate or looking for evidence as no one ever found an answer to whether God Is or not BUT only through REALIZATION that one is in ONENESS with THAT and knows that it too is a part of that *WHOLE*

Love & rgds

 

[filthy tugboat]

Well what I'm going to say isn't new but this question isn't new either. What proof is there about not being any form of God, Creator or higher power? None whatsoever! There is no evidence or scientific discovery that disproves a God existing.

Of course there's not, the term "God" is essentially meaningless, it can cover the God Apollo to Bible God, it doesn't actually have any meaningful ties to the word. But when people specify and begin to put forward a complete God concept that is when such a concept can be disproved. In my mind Bible God has but not for everyone. He might exist and I could be wrong but that just isn't the way i see it right now.

But to address your point, it is quite the contrary, There is a lot of evidence and reasoning that disproves many Gods.

 

[kerravon]

Do you know how to create a living cell? If you don't, why would you presume that our current level of technology should produce a living cell?

Because we have the ability to manipulate DNA, meaning we can operate on an atomic level, but we don't possess the magical "life force" to make something come alive.

I don't understand this argument at all because it seems like you are inferring that life cannot be created by humans while simultaneously expecting that we should have already creating life.... :/

I would expect that if nature can produce something on earth by accident, that we should be able to apply our vast intelligence and deliberateness to the task and create it ourselves.

Really? Why would it be created by accident? If anything it would be a by-product of the universe and the forces that govern the universe. I don't understand why so many theists misrepresent atheists in this way. Is it intentional misrepresentation or do you honestly think atheists think it's an "accident"? An accident would require a volitional being, so you couldn't be talking about atheists.

Not sure which atheists you have been talking to, but I was an atheist for decades, and I believed that life was created on earth by accident. ie the right chemicals comeing together at the right time at the right place and hey presto, a living cell.

What other evidence?

As per other message in this thread from me.

Is it unlikely or impossible?

I believe it is unlikely, but not impossible, that a living cell was created by accident when we can't even do that deliberately.

I really don't know what you think on the matter, the way you presented the first part of this response made it look like you think it impossible without a God, but if you think it is unlikely, what point were you trying to make earlier?

The point is it is evidence, not proof, that there has been a supernatural hand in the making of the universe.

 

[Jinse]

Friend Jinse,



You are still missing! have none to blame as there is no other.

The other is part of the self. Two may be different but the two is part of the balance.

God is or not is not a matter for debate or looking for evidence as no one ever found an answer to whether God Is or not BUT only through REALIZATION that one is in ONENESS with THAT and knows that it too is a part of that *WHOLE*

Love & rgds

For someone who see a *God* as part of the *WHOLE* there is really no evidence. It is experience but for someone who see *God* as a being and ask if this *God* exists evidence can be a factor to make *them* believe.

 

[Jinse]

the evidence is seen in the organization of the universe and the laws of nature

chaos will produce a random mess....not order
there is no way that the forces of nature can produce life...they simply cannot.

The same arguments in the Summa Theologica. But there is no tangible one which makes me doubt.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Jinse,

The other is part of the self. Two may be different but the two is part of the balance.

The point of BALANCE its all ONE!

For someone who see a *God* as part of the *WHOLE* there is really no evidence. It is experience but for someone who see *God* as a being and ask if this *God* exists evidence can be a factor to make *them* believe.

God is in every being including that which you label as *I*. It is an inward journey which is gone into through meditation and not through external search through evidence.
However, since its a long journey; preparation for the journey may be helpful.

Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

 

[filthy tugboat]

Because we have the ability to manipulate DNA, meaning we can operate on an atomic level, but we don't possess the magical "life force" to make something come alive.

Being able to manipulate DNA is not being able to operate on an atomic level, it's being able to operate on a cellular level. Is it magical? I seriously doubt that it is. Just because we are not currently capable of doing it doesn't mean it cannot be done and it certainly doesn't mean that magic is apart of the process.

I would expect that if nature can produce something on earth by accident, that we should be able to apply our vast intelligence and deliberateness to the task and create it ourselves.

Still, not an accident, it's a bi-product of the forces of the universe and of the universe itself. For something to be accidental, it has to be the product of a volitional entity who intended to do something different, this view is mutually exclusive with atheism. Do you also think that humans should be capable of producing stars? Black Holes? Galaxies? Why do you think that humans should be capable of producing anything that can naturally occur in this universe?

Not sure which atheists you have been talking to, but I was an atheist for decades, and I believed that life was created on earth by accident.

Are you sure? Because life being created is theistic terminology, only theists speak that way because for something to have been created it requires a creator. See above for why the term "accident" is mutually exclusive with atheism.

ie the right chemicals comeing together at the right time at the right place and hey presto, a living cell.

Exactly, how is this accidental?

As per other message in this thread from me.

I shall search for it and respond later.

I believe it is unlikely, but not impossible, that a living cell was created by accident when we can't even do that deliberately.

I don't understand, it's unlikely because we can't do it deliberately? Could you explain the reasoning behind this for me?

You do realize that even if life formed out of non-living matter billions of years ago, God could exist, such a notion does not counter the God concept one bit because God would still be responsible for creating the universe that was capable of producing it's own life. If anything, it makes such a God concept that much more impressive.

The point is it is evidence, not proof, that there has been a supernatural hand in the making of the universe.

No, it's not at all. It's an argument from ignorance. "We don't understand this, therefore.... Magic or God... Or Ghosts?? SUPERNATURAL!"

There's one thing few people realize about the supernatural, I could grant you any magical incident you could imagine, you could tell me that you were resurrected from the dead, that you imagined and subsequently materialized a sky scraper sized church out of thin air, and I could accept it all, I could grant the truth in those statements, but none of it could ever prove God. Nothing can prove God. If you concede that the supernatural is true then there is absolutely no amount of reasoning that can draw any conclusion from a supernatural event. It could be God or it could be malevolent spirits trying to trick you into thinking it was God. Reality could be false and I could just be a brain in a tank being put through a matrix style simulation and that is equally as good an explanation for every supernatural event as God.

 

[filthy tugboat]

The universe is 13.7 billion years old according to science. If the universe was 0.01% younger, us intelligent humans wouldn't be here and the world would be a boring place.

First off, what relevance does this have?

Secondly, in order for something to be boring, someone has to observe it as such. If we weren't here, who would be here to view it as boring

If the universe was 0.01% older, humans would be redundant as we would have invented artificial intelligence.

Would we be redundant with AI? Would we have created AI?

Instead, we've been placed at a remarkable period in history.

We've been placed? Since when? This is a remarkable period in history?

Incredibly remarkable. We have nuclear weapons able to wipe out humanity, we are on the verge of spreading democracy across the globe, and we've just had the internet give everyone a voice in the global debate so we can discuss our differences and chart a course for the future.

Indeed, how is this any more remarkable than it was 1 billion years ago?

It's too damned neat.

Are you honestly saying that because of the time in history that it is right now, the universe is too neat to not have been created by some form of God?

It's far more likely that the extra 0.01% of history (ie 1 million years from now) has already happened, and our "descendants" have fantastic computer technology available to them, and they are running a computer simulation of which we are now a part. The interesting things they have packed into our timeframe probably didn't happen in such a short space in theirs.

What? Can you demonstrate how you determined what is likely and what is unlikely? I don't understand how you reached this conclusion.

OR THE EQUIVALENT - ie there are no "descendants", there's another way these computer simulations are being created.

Regardless, the overwhelming evidence as I see it is that this is a gigantic setup. We've been given a challenge of creating a free world without human rights abuses in our lifetimes.

What evidence is there for that? How is that evidence (if there is any) overwhelming?

Then there are all those fine-tuned parameters that make the universe as something that is capable of supporting life instead of just one large black hole.

The universe is the way it is, it would appear fine tuned only to those that expect a tuner.

Then if you look hard enough and with certain assumptions there is a verifiable miracle.

Only with certain assumptions.

So this is why I am a theist, but I have an atheistic mindset as I was a long time atheist.

I don't really think your mindset is all that atheistic.

To me the world is changed forever with the computer simulation model. I now attempt to derive the rules of the current simulation and try to decide what I'd prefer the rules to be. You can post on the above thread if you like.

Note that even in the "worst" case where this isn't a computer simulation after all, we can still expect that in a short time (0.01% or whatever) we will have the ability to create artificial universes and download our brains onto silicon so that we can join those universes, so we need to determine what we want the rules to be anyway, for preparation of when we (or our descendants) are gods ourselves. But like I said, I doubt that we'll be the very very first to create AI. And given that according to science intelligence was created just by accident in evolution, I doubt that it'll take us a whopping 0.01% to create it deliberately with all our technology. More like 0.000001% (137 years).

What scientific models are you using to reach these conclusions? They seem very outlandish and speak a lot of science fiction rather than anything based on actual scientific information.

 

[Jinse]

Friend Jinse,


The point of BALANCE its all ONE!

My point of BALANCE is different. All are different but part of a WHOLE. You cannot say that I=Me. Our points itself prove that we are unique from each other. But I+Me= WHOLE.

God is in every being including that which you label as *I*. It is an inward journey which is gone into through meditation and not through external search through evidence.
However, since its a long journey; preparation for the journey may be helpful.

Best Wishes.

Love & rgds

That is if you believe that *God* if everything and everything is *God* or if *God*= *You* or *Me*. There is no needed evidence if that if how you think. BUT many perceive *God* as a being. Some require evidence to believe. To see is to believe.

 

[religion99]

Last God wandered on this Earth some 2,500 years ago. Next God will be born in this Earth after about 24,000 years. So , you are out of luck if you want direct evidence.

There are living Gods in other Earths , but you require special powers to go there. Last person
to go there from this Earth and return was born some 1,000 years back.

Some poeple , who are born in this Earth , have come from other Earths where living Gods
are wandering right now. Some of them remember and describe their encounters with Gods in their previous lives. This is "as direct as it can get".

I don't know a living person who remebers their previous experiences with Gods ,but I certainly
know a person who died some 25 years back and has written a book about his encounter with God
in previous birth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

the evidence is seen in the organization of the universe and the laws of nature

chaos will produce a random mess....not order
there is no way that the forces of nature can produce life...they simply cannot.

Actually it is a human invention to make order of complexity and the dynamics of the universe* by recognizing patterns, noting symmetry, and such and neatly putting it in categorical boxes to extrapolate a type of understanding. The universe in reality is neither chaotic or orderly by way of it's true nature. We just happen to see it that way.

*Alan Watts had frequently liked to state that nature and the universe is wiggly, for which in coming about to an understanding of nature and the universe, one that is soley comprised of orderliness, becomes increasingly a frustratingly futile endeavor.

 

[ChristineES]

I guess this is the reason why I no longer give what I call my own proof. I guess I just don't want people to come behind me and say "that isn't proof", even though I would have already said "This won't be proof to you". Then it would turn into a back and forth disagreement. I don't mind debates, but this kind of debate isn't really a debate- the way I see it.

 

[kerravon]

Being able to manipulate DNA is not being able to operate on an atomic level, it's being able to operate on a cellular level.

The DNA is a molecule, so when they splice it they are operating on an atomic level.

Is it magical? I seriously doubt that it is. Just because we are not currently capable of doing it doesn't mean it cannot be done and it certainly doesn't mean that magic is apart of the process.

I'm not saying it's proof. Just evidence. I do expect us to be able to recreate things that nature allegedly created by accident.

Still, not an accident, it's a bi-product of the forces of the universe and of the universe itself. For something to be accidental, it has to be the product of a volitional entity who intended to do something different, this view is mutually exclusive with atheism.

I looked up www.dictionary.com and it has:

3.
any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.

That is the definition I am using, and it doesn't require a "volitional entity".

Do you also think that humans should be capable of producing stars? Black Holes? Galaxies?

No, because I acknowledge those require large amounts of matter/force that we can't reproduce in labs here.

Why do you think that humans should be capable of producing anything that can naturally occur in this universe?

Because stuff that occurs naturally, ie just by accident/random event, is something that we should also be able to do deliberately unless the random event involved greater forces than we have access to.

Are you sure? Because life being created is theistic terminology, only theists speak that way because for something to have been created it requires a creator. See above for why the term "accident" is mutually exclusive with atheism.

You have a very unique and strict view of the word "accident".

Exactly, how is this accidental?

Because I don't have a very unique and strict view of the word "accident".

I don't understand, it's unlikely because we can't do it deliberately? Could you explain the reasoning behind this for me?

Yes, even when I was an atheist I was very suspicious about the fact that we couldn't create a living cell with all our technology. It was as if there was a mysterious "life force" at play. In the competition between humans using immense logic to construct things, and nature relying on dumb luck, I do expect humans to be victorious. If you look around the world you can see the sophisticated machinery that humans have created, and I think we outperform nature in complexity, except for two things - a living cell and artificial intelligence. We are being beaten by nature (or more likely God) at that game.

You do realize that even if life formed out of non-living matter billions of years ago, God could exist, such a notion does not counter the God concept one bit because God would still be responsible for creating the universe that was capable of producing it's own life. If anything, it makes such a God concept that much more impressive.

Sure. I just happen to believe that we're living in a computer simulation, and it is in the nature of the simulation that life can only come from other life, and intelligence is also part of the simulation, it's implemented on silicon, not our brains.

No, it's not at all. It's an argument from ignorance. "We don't understand this, therefore.... Magic or God... Or Ghosts?? SUPERNATURAL!"

We don't understand something that I wouldn't expect to be too complex if nature made it without any intelligent force behind it.

There's one thing few people realize about the supernatural, I could grant you any magical incident you could imagine, you could tell me that you were resurrected from the dead, that you imagined and subsequently materialized a sky scraper sized church out of thin air, and I could accept it all, I could grant the truth in those statements, but none of it could ever prove God. Nothing can prove God. If you concede that the supernatural is true then there is absolutely no amount of reasoning that can draw any conclusion from a supernatural event. It could be God or it could be malevolent spirits trying to trick you into thinking it was God.

Sure, but you're allowing the concept of intelligent creatures messing with us.

Reality could be false and I could just be a brain in a tank being put through a matrix style simulation and that is equally as good an explanation for every supernatural event as God.

That is the model I use myself. But in that scenario there's still a God. Whoever set up the brain in the tank is God.

 

[kerravon]

First off, what relevance does this have?

When a slight variation of something makes a world of difference, it's evidence of fine tuning.

Secondly, in order for something to be boring, someone has to observe it as such. If we weren't here, who would be here to view it as boring

It would be objectively boring, if we were watching it.

Would we be redundant with AI?

Yep. That's the last barrier to getting rid of human beings.

Would we have created AI?

We should have, if there's nothing magical about intelligence.

We've been placed? Since when? This is a remarkable period in history?

I believe the universe is only decades old. And yes, this is a remarkable period in history, as I explained already.

Indeed, how is this any more remarkable than it was 1 billion years ago?

If you were to observe the product of the creatures who lived 1 billion years ago, with what we are producing today, there is no contest. The humour, the debates, the activities, the movies.

Are you honestly saying that because of the time in history that it is right now, the universe is too neat to not have been created by some form of God?

Yes, the number of interesting things that are happening here make it look like it has been deliberately created as a puzzle to be solved. Not just a random accident of nature.

What? Can you demonstrate how you determined what is likely and what is unlikely? I don't understand how you reached this conclusion.

Being fine-tuned to 0.01% accuracy by accident is unlikely because it's an extremely small tolerance.

What evidence is there for that? How is that evidence (if there is any) overwhelming?

I have already laid out the evidence and why I think extremely small tolerances and fine-tuned physical constants and remarkable accidents are overwhelming.

The universe is the way it is, it would appear fine tuned only to those that expect a tuner.

It IS fine-tuned. A less fine-tuned universe would simply be a large black hole. It all smacks of deliberate creation by an intelligent entity.

Only with certain assumptions.

Yes, I consider them to be reasonable assumptions, such as women have the right to not be raped, and we have an obligation to protect women.

I don't really think your mindset is all that atheistic.

I use the scientific method to scrutinize everything and I don't accept anything written as inerrant.

What scientific models are you using to reach these conclusions? They seem very outlandish and speak a lot of science fiction rather than anything based on actual scientific information.

It's what I consider to be logical. Not sure what else can be applied to this question.

 

[Nicolombian77]

the evidence is seen in the organization of the universe and the laws of nature

chaos will produce a random mess....not order
there is no way that the forces of nature can produce life...they simply cannot.

oh because you say so hmm....
chaos refers to the amount of energy being transfered and converted in the universe, it does not mean there can never be order in an objective sense :thud:

 

[Nicolombian77]

:slap:so far I have seen nothing but assumptions and dodging the question eg. "what I call proof you may not call proof", "god cannot be proved", "we are in the Matrix", and what not.

Because stuff that occurs naturally, ie just by accident/random event, is something that we should also be able to do deliberately unless the random event involved greater forces than we have access to.

==kerravon
lol scientist have already succesfully created the whole DNA sequence of an organism
just because we don't have the technology to do it doesn't mean it can't be done.

1000 years ago, humans could not make snow
you're saying that back then this proved that there was a "Force" other than typical laws of physics acting on the universe.
when anyone can answer the question, message me

 

[idav]

Ok theists, I want you to submit any evidence that there is a god(s). I don't want posts that say:"well scientists don't know how this works therefore its god". I want any empirical evidence that you have to submit.

After giving me proof that there is a god(s), then you must give me evidence that your god is the true god. Again I don't want circular logic that "my holy book says that my god exists, so he does."

If anyone can do this, I will convert to their faith and spend the rest of my life worshiping. This "evidence" will also change the world forever.

Ready. Begin.

We can start with a definition. I would consider the "source of everything" to be a decent way to define god. Do I need to show you evidence that there is a source for everything in existence?