Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[sojourner]

How did he come into being?

God always Is.

What things exist beyond human's reach? Surely if you tell me that then there's proof for God.

If we knew that, then it wouldn't be beyond our reach...

You don't need to find a greater purpose for everything in life. My 3 year old cousin always asks why, maybe you've never let go of that annoying habit

That innate and "annoying habit" is what has spurred us to greater scientific understanding of the world around us...

They are all natural. There is no wisdom in the ecosystem. You've seen something that works and called it wise. The whole point of things in nature is survival; because things survive you call them wise. But you never see the parasitic worm that embeds itself in the eye of a lamb and eats it from the inside out and say 'oh, that's wise.' Take nature as a whole and see the ugly side. See the cancer in babies and down syndrome and famine and death and plague and sweltering heat and bitter cold and terminal illness. Oh how good god is!

Would you rather not be in existence? I'd have to say that life, itself, is a pretty good thing, even if it has an ugly side.

 

[sojourner]

I'm kinda confused here...
Are you saying that not only do you have to look for god beyond your own understanding, but beyond the understanding of all human kind?

No, I'm saying that God is not proved by fact and empirical knowledge.

 

[McBell]

No, I'm saying that God is not proved by fact and empirical knowledge.

Then by what is god proven by?

 

[sojourner]

"No one can see God's face and not live"
^^ This has as much validity as your statement.
Although there seems to be some internal conflict. Was Jesus not gOd and didn't many people look at his face? Now you're arguing exodus vs. New testament.

Jesus was fully human. We saw God by looking at a human face -- in other words, by approaching God from the "back side," or human side. And even looking at Jesus does not give us the totality of God's appearance.

To sum up your statement - there is no empirical or logical proof for God.

Yes, but empiricism and logic are not the be-all-end-all of our windows to the Divine.

If we have no proof of God we cannot know anything about his nature (he could be anything.)

I disagree. Intuition can be informational, just as empiricism.

We should therefore just blindly choose a religion and stick with it.

I don't understand this statement. discernment has nothing to do with "blind choice." It has everything to do with a call to particularity.

Sucks to be one of the 99% of religious people who have been indoctrinated.

Indoctrinated? Since when has anyone mentioned "indoctrination" here? Or are you adding provisos to your argument as you go along? Sucks to be one of the 99% of atheistic people who have been indoctrinated...

I'll pass.

Great! I'll be sure to pass that along to everyone who never asked for your presence in the first place!

 

[BottomlessThought]

God always Is.

If we knew that, then it wouldn't be beyond our reach...

This thread is not asking you to tell us "what you know" without justification as you are doing, but do give evidence for your assertions.

That innate and "annoying habit" is what has spurred us to greater scientific understanding of the world around us...

Do you really think that asking "why" is what has spurred science on? If there's one thing that is true about science (and there are a lot), it's the fact that it refuses to make any assertions, such as that there is indeed a purpose to life (something completely unprovable and frankly, horribly unlikely). Science works with the "how" of the universe's operation; working with the "why" would involve an erroneous assumption.

Would you rather not be in existence? I'd have to say that life, itself, is a pretty good thing, even if it has an ugly side.

And why, exactly, does life have to be put down to a supernatural creator?

 

[muffin8or]

God always Is.

How? Why does he always exist. And why can't the universe or matter or energy have always existed instead of God?

If we knew that, then it wouldn't be beyond our reach...

If we don't know anything beyond our reach then why say that there aer things beyond our reach? Makes no sense.

That innate and "annoying habit" is what has spurred us to greater scientific understanding of the world around us...

True. But that's using the scientific method. The guy I quoted used it as an argument for God. Rather than go to the scientific method he just resorted to God.

Would you rather not be in existence? I'd have to say that life, itself, is a pretty good thing, even if it has an ugly side.

I'd rather an all loving all knowing all powerful God got of his *** and fixed it.

 

[sojourner]

Then by what is god proven by?

God isn't proven. That's the whole problem. The OP insists that God must be proven. But God isn't proven.

 

[muffin8or]

Do you really think that asking "why" is what has spurred science on? If there's one thing that is true about science (and there are a lot), it's the fact that it refuses to make any assertions, such as that there is indeed a purpose to life (something completely unprovable and frankly, horribly unlikely). Science works with the "how" of the universe's operation; working with the "why" would involve an erroneous assumption.

This.

Much better put than I did.

 

[McBell]

God isn't proven. That's the whole problem. The OP insists that God must be proven. But God isn't proven.

That does not answer the question.

Again:

By what means is god to be proven?
​

Now if you are saying that god can never be proven, then my question is:

why bother?
​

 

[muffin8or]

God isn't proven. That's the whole problem. The OP insists that God must be proven. But God isn't proven.

If God isn't proven then why believe in him. That's what I want to know

 

[sojourner]

How? Why does he always exist. And why can't the universe or matter or energy have always existed instead of God?

Why not? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? Can't God exist alongside matter or energy? Can't matter or energy be part of the way in which God is embodied?

If we don't know anything beyond our reach then why say that there aer things beyond our reach? Makes no sense.

That kind of thinking is usually disparaged by atheists who use it as an example of the pre-Enlightenment thinking that allowed the church to keep the world in the dark ages...
Why do you champion it here? Or are you arguing just to hear your head rattle?

True. But that's using the scientific method. The guy I quoted used it as an argument for God. Rather than go to the scientific method he just resorted to God.

The scientific method is just about as effective as 3-year-old questioning when it comes to "proving" God.

I'd rather an all loving all knowing all powerful God got of his *** and fixed it.

Well, I'd have to say 1) This isn't the "world according to you," 2) God put us in charge of stewardship of the world, 3) perhaps God would rather you got of your *** and fixed it. And, in the end, isn't that what constitutes a ... "call?"

 

[BottomlessThought]

Jesus was fully human. We saw God by looking at a human face -- in other words, by approaching God from the "back side," or human side. And even looking at Jesus does not give us the totality of God's appearance.
Yes, but empiricism and logic are not the be-all-end-all of our windows to the Divine.

Surely that assumes that there is a "Divine", an assumption which fails to provide any argument for God?

I disagree. Intuition can be informational, just as empiricism.

This is true; intuition can be informational. But it should not be valued ahead of, or alongside, decision-making based on evidence, which is what would lead you to the conclusion that God probably doesn't exist. In any case, I certainly don't have any intuition that God exists; I do believe that most of the people who do have this "intuition" have it because they were brought up with it (i.e. indoctrinated). I'm capable of looking openly at the world, and I don't see the need for intuition here.

I don't understand this statement. discernment has nothing to do with "blind choice." It has everything to do with a call to particularity.

Fair enough, but what muffin8or is saying is that indoctrination defines the openness and flexibility of your mind, such that you cannot change religion easily when you grow up.

Indoctrinated? Since when has anyone mentioned "indoctrination" here? Or are you adding provisos to your argument as you go along? Sucks to be one of the 99% of atheistic people who have been indoctrinated...

Barely any atheistic people have been indoctrinated - that's a downright stupid thing to say. I think you will find it is the part of theists to insist that what they believe is right; a lot more of them will want to ensure their children follow their religion and thus indoctrinate them in it (seeing as they believe it is the truth, after all), than the atheists who will want to carefully force their children to stay away from God (the atheists being aware that, devoid of any influences on the matter, their children will grow up, think independently and logically, and probably arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist, not that it matters to most atheists much what their children believe).

Great! I'll be sure to pass that along to everyone who never asked for your presence in the first place!

Out of interest, does that include God? Or was it his intention to have atheists raging at him with arguments?

 

[sojourner]

That does not answer the question.

Again:

By what means is god to be proven?
​

Now if you are saying that god can never be proven, then my question is:

why bother?
​

Dear God, he can be taught! Why bother looking for apples in an orange grove? Far better to intuit God than to wast time "proving" God.

 

[tariqkhwaja]

Assalamualaikum.

Hmm ... okay the following lends credibility to the fact that God exists. But it is not definitive proof that He exists. There is a difference in science between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. So this is a theory that lends credibility to the existence of God. This theory should give people motivation to further explore the possibility of God's existence. It is only upon further exploration that definitive proofs of God's existence may come to fore. Religion is not that simple ... God requires us to make great efforts in His cause before He rewards us with definitive proofs.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics is the evidence. Creation moves from order towards disorder. Unless a system is specifically designed to do the opposite. So if the universe is moving from order to disorder then how did it get ordered in the first place?

 

[McBell]

Dear God, he can be taught! Why bother looking for apples in an orange grove? Far better to intuit God than to wast time "proving" God.

Ahhh
So you are merely trying to justify your beliefs.

Gotcha.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why does everyone on this forum play with definitions? You infuriate me. Your beliefs are so abstract that they could apply to anything.

You've called an unknown force God. And then you're against that force. If it is a mindless force then you being against it is as odd as me being against the sea. Or against the sun. Being against means holding the opposite view. You can't hold the opposite view to a mindless force. If it is a force with a mind (i.e. the traditional view of God) then you being against it is basically a ticket to punishment. All this is based on an unknown force.

Why even call the force God? Why can't it be a regular physical process? I assume you don't call electromagnetism or gravity God so why call an unknown physical force God?

What you've done is taken a word (God) twisted it to mean 'thing that started the universe' then applied it to an unknown event/force. And to top it all off you present it to me with the notion that it answers my question. It isn't in keeping with the definition of God I was obviously going for. All we've established is that you think that something created the universe and you are overall 'against' it.

I call it God because it created the universe.

My beliefs aren't abstract if you know me because I described a lot of them in threads.

I said I 'think' it is relevant to the beginning, and hey I call it God, doesn't mean you have to if you don't share the same definition.

I'm against it because it created us... And I'm pretty sure SOMETHING had to create the universe. Whatever that is I call it God.

 

[PolyHedral]

Dear God, he can be taught! Why bother looking for apples in an orange grove? Far better to intuit God than to wast time "proving" God.

Your intuition lies, quite severely in some cases.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Why not? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? Can't God exist alongside matter or energy? Can't matter or energy be part of the way in which God is embodied?

Why? Why does he have to be? No-one is saying he can't; that would be akin to claiming that you can disprove him. They are saying that he does not need to be, in which case the burden of proof is on you. God is, in the absence of any logic, reasoning or evidence in his favour, infinitely unlikely to exist, so you're essentially carrying an infinitely heavy burden on your weary shoulders in that you need to unburden yourself by showing that God is likely to exist, rather than insisting that just because he "can", he does.

The scientific method is just about as effective as 3-year-old questioning when it comes to "proving" God.

It's interesting, then, that rather than "proving" God, at which it would prove as ineffective as a 3-year-old, it chooses not to prove God? And instead, it takes the view that God is phenomenally unlikely? I think that's interesting.

Well, I'd have to say 1) This isn't the "world according to you," 2) God put us in charge of stewardship of the world, 3) perhaps God would rather you got of your *** and fixed it. And, in the end, isn't that what constitutes a ... "call?"

Forgive me, but isn't God the omnipotent one? Is he giving us a task just so he has the pleasure of watching us try and fail? That's the only explanation I can imagine for him not clicking his fingers and healing everything, unless, of course, there's someone else who could do everything as easily as him. Is that the case? Is muffin8or omnipotent, like God? That would also explain why God can't be bothered to fix things, and is just waiting for muffin8or to do it.

Dear God, he can be taught! Why bother looking for apples in an orange grove? Far better to intuit God than to wast time "proving" God.

And what of people who, using their intuition, don't think that God exists? Because, of all the unbiased people not brought up in religious families (i.e. not indoctrinated), I think you'll find the vast, vast majority tend not to "intuit God".

 

[sojourner]

Surely that assumes that there is a "Divine", an assumption which fails to provide any argument for God?

There are plenty of arguments for God's existence, and very few of them focus on "proof."

This is true; intuition can be informational. But it should not be valued ahead of, or alongside, decision-making based on evidence, which is what would lead you to the conclusion that God probably doesn't exist.

Why not? Why shouldn't it be valued ahead of or alongside of evidence? I suppose you have no use for the aesthetic, do you?

In any case, I certainly don't have any intuition that God exists; I do believe that most of the people who do have this "intuition" have it because they were brought up with it (i.e. indoctrinated). I'm capable of looking openly at the world, and I don't see the need for intuition here.

Then you're not looking very "openly" at the world.

Fair enough, but what muffin8or is saying is that indoctrination defines the openness and flexibility of your mind, such that you cannot change religion easily when you grow up.

Oh, I see! you would be talking about the same sort of indoctrination that has led you to believe that there is "no need for intuition here."

Barely any atheistic people have been indoctrinated - that's a downright stupid thing to say.

Oh? The most rabid atheists are as closed-minded as the most rabid of the religious.

I think you will find it is the part of theists to insist that what they believe is right;

I'm a theist, and I've never insisted that any metaphor or construct for God be "right."

a lot more of them will want to ensure their children follow their religion and thus indoctrinate them in it (seeing as they believe it is the truth, after all), than the atheists who will want to carefully force their children to stay away from God (the atheists being aware that, devoid of any influences on the matter, their children will grow up, think independently and logically, and probably arrive at the conclusion that God doesn't exist, not that it matters to most atheists much what their children believe).

I disagree.

Out of interest, does that include God? Or was it his intention to have atheists raging at him with arguments?

I think it's God's intention that we wrestle with God, which is certainly what's going on when atheists "rage at him with arguments."

 

[muffin8or]

Why not? Why does it have to be an either/or proposition? Can't God exist alongside matter or energy? Can't matter or energy be part of the way in which God is embodied?

Why appeal to an incredibly complex being if a natural occurrence fits? Why do you appeal to something that cannot be known? What's the use or purpose?

That kind of thinking is usually disparaged by atheists who use it as an example of the pre-Enlightenment thinking that allowed the church to keep the world in the dark ages...
Why do you champion it here? Or are you arguing just to hear your head rattle?

You're wrong. Saying there are things out of our reach is a churchly thing. Used to tell people that God will always be better and that they should submit. If logical thinkers started thinking with the preconception that there are things automatically objectively out of their reach they wouldn't get very far.

The scientific method is just about as effective as 3-year-old questioning when it comes to "proving" God.

Once again, why believe in God?

Well, I'd have to say 1) This isn't the "world according to you," 2) God put us in charge of stewardship of the world, 3) perhaps God would rather you got of your *** and fixed it. And, in the end, isn't that what constitutes a ... "call?"

Quoting the bible has no value. "The good book is good because the good book says its good" And you did ask me what would make me happy (albeit through the method of asking if I'd be happy if I never existed.