proof of GOD

[zenzero]

Friend Pegg,

Kindly understand that *god* is not an entity the way most understand.
The totality of existence i.e. whatever is seen and not seen all put together is *god* and so each form or no-form are components of that entity or *energy*.
The confusion is created by the minds which creates the barrier and so all ways/paths/religions are pointers towards *stilling* that mind. A still mind [without thoughts] is when the harmony is found.

Love & rgds

 

[Pegg]

Friend Pegg,

Kindly understand that *god* is not an entity the way most understand.
The totality of existence i.e. whatever is seen and not seen all put together is *god* and so each form or no-form are components of that entity or *energy*.
The confusion is created by the minds which creates the barrier and so all ways/paths/religions are pointers towards *stilling* that mind. A still mind [without thoughts] is when the harmony is found.

Love & rgds

'a mind without thought is harmony'

thats an interesting thought... that fact that i'm thinking about not thinking means my mind has not found harmony?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Pegg,

a mind without thought is harmony'

thats an interesting thought... that fact that i'm thinking about not thinking means my mind has not found harmony?

That is why the world is in a chaos, disharmony etc.
Without meditation/zen/dhyana there can be no harmony and meditation/zen/dhyana transcends the mind and the state is of no-mind [no-thought].
Yes, it appears ironic that all religions are ways or path to lead the mind to the state of no-thought.

Love & rgds

 

[Polarcrest]

That is a horrible arguement on the students part. We don't take that the prof. has a brain based on faith...that is just plain stupid. The reason we take that he has a brain is consistant fact that every one of our species has one and we have seen them, smelt them, touched them...sadly...tasted them.

We know he has a brain. Also...just because we haven't "Seen" evolution (Even though we have) doesn't meen it's not real. I say this because we have evidence to prove it. Someone may not have seen a murder but they can prove it with evidence.

God has no evidence...any god. You have a false bible and "Personal experiences" that cannot be verified.

 

[Ásmólfar_Järvelä]

This isnt realy proof of god, its more disproving atheism

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't really understand, it just proves that you can have faith... It proves no god at all.

 

[McBell]

Its similar with God. We cannot see him or touch him or measure him, but we can see the effect he has on us.

Would not the exact same hold true for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, Chupacraba?

I mean they all have the exact same amount and type of evidence and they all effect people...

 

[Morpheus]

Q: What have you got when you argue with an idiot?
A: 2 idiots!

Both prof and student are so ill informed its like a couple of 2 year olds arguing over thermo-nuclear fusion (if ther is such a thing!).

 

[Luminous]

OH I’ve always hated such ignorance in my philosophy class. I noticed it quite well in my professor as well. Though I would stand up against the professors ignorant* Atheist ways: mine said agnosticism uses and infinite regression. Please, Atheism uses a false duality. None the less I would have to stand up to this sort of ignorant student also, I admit I get flustered and emotional when I do it personally in class, none the less I would have to point out That:
We can FEEL cold. We can PERCIEVE darkness. We DO have cold resepters, and we have light receptors, electricity can be felt through shock and pain, and magnetism can be felt through our pressure receptors. Both IMBECILES are wasting my money. If they want to have a personal and ignorant discussion they can do it on their own time. Science DOESN’T NEED to explain thought, it supposed to predict and measure it, which it can. SCIENCE can’t even explain why the Physical Laws exist, there is NO “why” in Agnostic Science.
{student asks professor if he has seen something evolve}
Oh God, attacks on Evolution is what we devolve to in Philosophy classes?!?! I OBSERVED Evolution, you observe evolution every time a child is born, Every time bacterial colonies are massacred to only leave the selected alive.
{student asks if professor has a brain}
Are you serious!!! Insulting the Professor PUBLICLY non-the-less! disgusting indecent theist! WTF! WHAT if I decide I need prove YOU have THE AREA FOR DECENCY within your brain! That I may fix it and fix YOU!!
{professor stupidly agrees that you have to take the existence of his brain on faith}
Professor, I most certainly WILL NOT take the existence of your brain on MY BLIND FAITH, I take the existence of my class-mate’s here on assumption, and assumption alone. Though he gives me as much evidence as you that he may very well lack one!! You are both irritating me very much and I will have to report you and your conversation to the school authorities
{Student says the link to God is faith}
The Link between MAN and HABABALOO is FAITH as well theist!!! Yet I don’t see you worshiping IT AND ALL ITS DONE FOR YOU, unless ofcourse it lets you call IT God!!
{Student suggests faith is what keeps things alive}
OFcourse THEIST, let me deny you FOOD, and let me DENY YOUR FOOD THE SUN, let’s see how much their faith keeps them alive then!!
Oh Indian President Kalam, how ignorant you were as a child.

*my professor allowed theists to speak and didn't respond well to the stupidity of their arguments sometimes, leaving me to do lots of the work. Very Knowledgable on Philosophy though, which to me is just as good as been Knowledgable on how the Miami Heat has been doing in their games.

I actually heard a more interesting story which I consider more true. In my friend's religion class the professor was explainin how jesus was put to death for his famous treason and flipping the table. A Christian girl emidiatly stood up (ready to waste the classes time) and PROCLAIMED That that was SIMPLY NOT TRUE. "Jesus died for our sins!" She said she simply wasn't going to sit and let him say that. The response was a mere pitiful "o.k." and a nod. (Oh I don't know what I would have done to maintain myself from letting her know how it was since the Professor was too much of a coward to control his own class; good thing I wasn't in it) But I know what that professor probably taught the next semester, the same thing he thought in the previous.

 

[Adonis65]

Further, evolution is observable. It takes a long time to observe it in one's lifetime.

Why can't we experience observable evolution in all its stages, now? Isn't that what would make intelligent design obsolete?

 

[Pachomius]

You titled this thread proof of god. I just see faith. That is not proof at all.

We have to first to agree what it is to prove something exist.

For example, what is it to prove that your nose exists?

And what about what is it to prove dark matter exists?


In both instances there has got to be evidence.

That brings in the question what is evidence?


Okay, what is the evidence that your nose and my nose exist?

The evidence of the nose is that we can touch it, we can see it, we can be aware of its presence.

What about dark matter, what is the evidence for dark matter, for according to astrophysicists it really exists only they don't know what it is exactly in terms of the components making up the material universe.

We have to read the words of astrophysicists on what is their evidence for the existence of dark matter which can be as much as 90 to 99% of the matter in the universe.

[ Source merriam-webster-com-dictionary-"dark matter"] Dark matter - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary ]*

dark matter noun
Definition of DARK MATTER
: nonluminous matter not yet directly detected by astronomers that is hypothesized to exist to account for various observed gravitational effects

There, the evidence for dark matter are the "various observed gravitational effects" in the universe.

Now, what is the evidence for God in the universe, if we are to use the same method by which astrophysicists come to the evidence for the existence of dark matter?

Here, the evidence for God's existence as the maker of everything in the universe that is not God Himself is the fact that there are things in the universe like our nose and man himself which are subject to origination and annihilation, meaning, therefore there is a maker who gives origin to the nose of man as also man himself, and this maker also takes away the existence of the nose of man as of man himself when the time set for man's departure which he the maker also determined has arrived.


God as defined in His fundamental relation to the universe in the Christian faith is the maker of everything in the universe that is subject to origination and annihilation -- wherefore such an everything could not have made itself, it needs a maker outside itself, and that is God.


Now, atheists will counter with the question, who made God?

So, the question is now into theology of the existence of God.


The answer is God just exists as God from all eternity, He cannot not exist, existence is the default status of God.

As the universe is composed of God and His creation, prior to His creation of everything, God is the totality of existence in the universe, so that God and the universe in that situation prior to His creation of everything in the universe not Himself, God and the universe were convertible.

Now atheists at this point will bring in infinite regress which is an invalid concept, an invalid concept is an idea that cannot have any correspondence to any object in the realm of reality outside of concepts and words in the mind of man, it is like for example a square-circle.


Do you have any evidence for an infinitely regressing object?

What about evidence that God cannot not exist, that existence is God’s default nature and essence.

The fact that there are things in the universe that are subject to origination and annihilation to God, that is the ground for inferring to the nature and essence of God as always existing and therefore He cannot not exist.


At this point, we have all to go into very serious and very fruitful thinking which is in the realm of theology.




Pachomius

*Sorry, can't give the link. not yet qualified until I have completed 15 posts.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Zenzero:

There is a difference between the lack of empirical data for the professor's brain and the lack of empirical data demonstrating the existence of "God."

There is a very strong possibility that if said professor's skull were to be opened up, then a brain would be present. This is based on historical evidence that has been shown over and over again; humans have brains. That is exactly the kind of duplicitous argumentation that makes most scientists balk, and in my opinion actually retards humanity's progress because it undermines good discussion within the realm of cosmology.

Is there such a thing as cold? Uh, actually yes there is. It is a subjective sensation relative to the normative human body temperature; no there isn't any substance known as cold, but if you want to get technical heat doesn't have material existence either; it is "merely" the excited state of molecules. Infrared photons can be used to excite most forms of matter, but technically it is not heat.

Long story short the argument breaks down when examined critically. Moreover the "student" in question never did address the questions. No duality? If there isn't any duality, then the student straight lied. "Is God good?" If there isn't any duality, then the answer MUST be "No." If you lack duality, then the answer to any and all questions about this being must be "No."

Once you get to the point where all inquiry fails (as it must with absolute monism), then it is completely outside the realm of human experience and therefore our ability to understand. We have no idea what something that is completely indiscriminate looks or appears or feels like. Nothing like that exists in our world. Things are defined by what they are not; a monistic Absolute is everything and nothing, and as such it defies description.



Pachomius:

You can't prove anything empirically. You can evidence it. The only things which can be proved are those things which exist inside systems which limit the universe of discourse to specific actors or contents. Logic and Mathematics can be proven, but only once you are given certain axioms as being true without argument (they are accepted as a matter of fiat or in order to give definition to the environment).

With that said: Are you seriously comparing the amount of evidence one has for our noses with that of dark matter? Dark matter is a part of theoretical cosmology. We use it to explain observations we don't understand. It is our current "best guess" as to what is responsible for our measurements. This is nothing like the fact that our faces have noses; for one thing we can feel our own noses. The existence of the self is one of those things that might very be an exception to empirical inquiry (I am aware that I exist).


Side Note: Dark Matter only makes up roughly 22% of the universe (the other 70% or so that you are misattributing is due to Dark Energy).


Why must noses have a specific origin? Noses might very well have developed on their own, and that is exactly what Evolution posits. What is annihilation? As near as I can tell nothing can be destroyed utterly; it can only change form.

You are also presuming that reality needed to be created in the first place. What evidence do you have that reality needs creation? How do you know that reality is not itself eternal? You don't. No one does. We have precisely zero evidence about the nature of reality itself. I am perfectly willing to admit that Reality might very well have been created, and thus you would need a "God" thing for an explanation of why reality exists. But you cannot just assume that reality itself needs creation and expect other people to do the same "because you said so."


MTF

 

[Pachomius]

[...]

Pachomius:

You can't prove anything empirically. You can evidence it.
[...]

What then tell me is your difference in concept between proving something to be existing and giving evidence of something to be existing?

You yourself cannot prove to yourself and also to your mother that your nose exists?

But you have evidence to convince yourself and your mother that you have a nose in your face?


Pachomius

 

[ManTimeForgot]

What then tell me is your difference in concept between proving something to be existing and giving evidence of something to be existing?

You yourself cannot prove to yourself and also to your mother that your nose exists?

But you have evidence to convince yourself and your mother that you have a nose in your face?


Pachomius

Proof is certainty; you cannot be empirically certain of anything with the possible exception that you exist. So, no, I cannot Prove to my mother that my nose exists. I can strongly evidence it; mostly by way of appealing to what I assume is her sense of touch and convincing her that I have a sense of smell and that this must mean I have a body and some part of that body that can smell.

But none of that is a proof. 2+2=4 is Provable within the confines of mathematics. It is not merely evidenced; it is a necessary feature of the system known as mathematics. The way most people use the term "proof" would have us believe it is synonymous with "super strong evidence." This is not the case. The legal definition of "proof" withstanding, a proof, as it applies to debates of philosophy of which this is one such debate, is something which establishes something else as a fact beyond question. And as anyone who has ever hallucinated something will tell you your senses can lie to you. Similarly, anyone who has ever been mistaken or misremembered something will tell humans are capable of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the world around them.


But that is all largely moot considering that the nature of "God" is unable to be evidenced let alone proven. I cannot use logic to prove something which is supposed to transcend logic; that is nonsense. Similarly, I cannot use evidence to try to establish the likelihood of something existing which is also supposed to transcend existence.

MTF

 

[Pachomius]

Proof is certainty; you cannot be empirically certain of anything with the possible exception that you exist. So, no, I cannot Prove to my mother that my nose exists.

[Stop there.]

Okay, cut the smart talk, tell me are you certain you have a nose in your face as also your mother?




Pachomius

 

[tomteapack]

A true story; Don't miss even a single word.... It's Too good

An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on
the problem science has with God, The Almighty.
He asks one of his new students to stand and......

Prof:
So you believe in God?

Student:
Absolutely, sir.

Prof
Is God good?

Student:
Sure.

Prof:
Is God all-powerful?

Student
: Yes..

Prof:
My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to
heal him.
Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But
God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student is silent.)

Prof:
You can't answer, can you? Let's start again, young fella.
Is God good?

Student:
Yes.

Prof:
Is Satan good?

Student
No.

Prof:
Where does Satan come from?

Student:
From....God...

Prof:
That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

Student:
Yes.

Prof:
Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything.
Correct?

Student:
Yes.

Prof:
So who created evil?
(Student does not answer.)

Prof:
Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these
terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

Student:
Yes, sir.

Prof:
So, who created them?
(Student has no answer.)

Prof:
Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and
observe the world around you.
Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

Student:
No, sir.

Prof:
Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

Student:
No, sir.

Prof:
Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your
God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for
that matter?

Student:
No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

Prof:
Yet you still believe in Him?

Student:
Yes.

Prof:
According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your GOD doesn't exist.
What do you say to that, son?

Student:
Nothing. I only have my faith.

Prof:
Yes. Faith. And that is the problem science has.

Student:
Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

Prof:
Yes.

Student:
And is there such a thing as cold?

Prof:
Yes.

Student:
No sir. There isn't.
(The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of
events.)

Student
Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat,
superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no
heat..
But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458
degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't
go any further after that.
There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use
to describe the absence of heat
We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy Cold is not the
opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it .
(There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

Student:
What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as
darkness?

Prof:
Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

Student :
You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of
something. You can have low light, normal light, bright
light, flashing light.....But if you have no light
constantly, you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't
it? In
reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to
make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

Prof:
So what is the point you are making, young man?

Student:
Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

Prof:
Flawed? Can you explain how?

Student:
Sir, you are working on the premise of duality.. You argue
there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite,
something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a
thought.. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never
seen, much less fully understood either one.To view death as
the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that
death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is
not the opposite of life: just the absence of it.
Now tell me, Professor.Do you teach your students that they
evolved from a monkey?

Prof:
If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process,
yes, of course, I do.

Student:
Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to
realize where the argument is going.)

Student:
Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at
work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going
endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you
not a scientist but a preacher? (The class is in uproar.)

Student:
Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the
Professor's brain?
(The class breaks out into laughter.)

Student
Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's
brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have
done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that
you have no brain,sir.
With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your
lectures, sir?
(The room is silent. The professor stares at the student,
his face unfathomable.)

Prof:
I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

Student:
That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH .
That is all that keeps things moving & alive.

NB: I believe you have enjoyed the conversation....and if
so...you'll probably want your friends/colleagues to enjoy
the same...won't you?....
this is a true story, and the

student was none other than .......
.. APJ Abdul Kalam, the former President of India.

To me, this was a bunch of nonsense and a waste of time. Why in the world would I care what a former president of India believed, lol. Oh and anyone that thinks faith is what keeps things alive has a serious education problem. As a matter of fact, the ignorance expressed by the "student" in the above story gives me to believe the story was about some 3rd grade elementary school.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Okay, cut the smart talk, tell me are you certain you have a nose in your face as also your mother?




Pachomius

I am not certain. I am as close to certain as is humanly possible; this makes it close to metaphysical certitude, and for all practical purposes I will make the assumption that it is a certainty, but I am leaving just enough room for doubt such that if a mountain of evidence came my way I would be able to update my beliefs to be in accordance with the truth.

MTF