Prove To Me That A God/Deity Exists

[Super Universe]

FALSE you make the claim you back it up


this is also a educational forum, not a avoid education and the facts of history and science due to theism

I did back it up. God exists, my evidence is the universe.

What's yours?

 

[Super Universe]

none at all

And how do you explain dreams?

 

[1137]

Everything that happens in the universe happens according to specific rules? Wow, isn't that convenient? Incredibly complex rules govern the incredibly complex universe. I mean, it's almost like there's a plan behind the scenes it's just that you can't figure out why.

Convenient? I am not sure what you mean by that? The laws of reality are only complex because we perceive them as complex. Obviously they are actually quite basic. The earth spins because there is nothing to stop it from doing so, it orbits the sun because the sun's large mass makes it have a strong gravitational pull. Please do show me where God is needed.

The laws of reason are some of the most basic facts? Could you tell me what these supposed "laws of reason" are?

The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle. Have you ever thought of taking philosophy and logic classes before getting involved in the areas? I highly recommend it.

So I'm not supposed to bring up points that you cannot refute, huh?

Haha, I was unaware you provided evidence or a logical argument I failed to refute. If you are talking about the cop out that "God may not want you to know it exists", I can refute that but perhaps not to your ridiculous standards. The fact that there is nothing suggesting nature (which you call God) is conscious shows that it cannot want anything at all.

There is no evidence of super intelligence or conscious thing interacting with our lives? What if God is just listening in? Do you have some proof that He isn't?

The burden of proof is on you. Since nothing suggests that is the case, it is on you to show it is the case. Ever plan on doing so, or are you all bark and no bite?

So the scientists don't know 100% of what exists in the universe but you, somehow, do?

Actually I never claimed that I know everything or that I am 100% sure. In fact, I specifically said I am confident that that is the case and that everything we know supports that, but I never said that I am 100% sure. My exact example was that I am not sure the sun will rise, but I am as close to positive as I can reasonably be. It's understandable though, I've noticed a correlation between fideism and lack of reading comprehension skills.

Childrens actions are 100% relevant to whether God exists. Everything that happens is relevant. You're trying to put God in a box, for Him to fit you're box has to be the size of, not just the universe but the multi-verse.

How so? You cannot just make claims, you have to support it. How is how my child acts proof or disproof of God existing? I agree that everything is important, it is the butterfly effect. All things effect all other things. How does this show God again? I must have missed that part.

You've obsessed over whether God exists or not? Why?

Hmmm, I probably couldn't say exactly. My father died when I was two so I always was interested in what happens after death. Obviously afterlife and God go hand and hand. I also had many issues in high school that made me truly start questioning, and my obsessive nature got the best of me and made me start spending all my spare time thinking about this question and researching all perspectives I had knowledge of. I even was majoring in philosophy / religion until I realized it was more a hobby and there were more important and unknown questions to deal with.

You've studied every possibility? I bet I have one you haven't heard or thought of.

I thought I said every possibility I had knowledge of, but apparently I didn't. Seeing as there are pretty much infinite possibilities I would never even imagine that I considered every single one. But there is no need to when everything we know points one way rather than the other.

I don't want to "bring you back" because I don't know where you were before. I'd be happy if you could admit that you just don't know and leave it at that.

I already have said that, but this goes back to that whole correlation between fideism and reading comprehension. I'm telling you, there must be one.

You've never driven in Italy so that's why you don't understand the relevance to my question. In the US, most people follow the road rules. It Italy, 90% of the people speed and pass constantly. There will be a two lane road with FOUR cars wide, two in the lanes going the proper direction and one car each trying to pass. Someone will give way, usually. Why do you think there is a difference in the way people act, we're all people? Oh, right, you haven't studied people but even if you did they wouldn't reflect God in any way...

So your argument is that people who live in different places on Earth have different ways of life, therefore God exists? Yeah man, that's completely solid. I would get that one published.

 

[Super Universe]

i dont find that to be true in the fact man has a long history of creating deities that match the culture that created them, and exactly as the culture change, the deity did as well.

thousands of deities have been created, but magically the one a person holds faith in with zero evidence somehow magically gains credibility due to said faith. despite the fact every defenition and description is different. the difference is the only common theme in deity worship if one looks at it from a historical perspective.

Man does have a history of creating mythology, how is that proof that God does not exist?

Our idea of God has evolved over the years? It has and it will continue to evolve for hundreds of years. God is incredibly complex, we won't have a real theory of exactly what He is for, perhaps, a thousand years.

Every definition or description of God is different? But that's people. I think what you're having the most trouble with is the fact that God simply does not explain Himself. He doesn't because it would ruin the entire life experiment of sentient beings. God proving Himself would instantly ruin the whole purpose of the universe.

 

[outhouse]

I did back it up. God exists, my evidence is the universe.

What's yours?

you did not, and your percieved evidence by faith alone is noted

 

[outhouse]

And how do you explain dreams?

get real

 

[Riverwolf]

Instead of trying to disprove gods and deities (which is scientifically speaking impossible) I want to hear why you think a god/deity exists, and why you think that the holy book of that god/deity which has no known author and contains things that seem mythical is a better explanation than proven facts published by scientists. And by proof I do not mean "well the bible says that he exists and the bible is his word so it proves itself." No. That is ********. I want REAL scientific proof that a god or deity exists. Give it a go.

I think you mean "physical."

Kinda funny how you're asking for physical evidence for non-physical entities. ^_^

But you seem to be asking contradictory questions. Do you want to know why I believe in Gods, which is something I can provide, or do you wish for scientific evidence of their existence, which no one can provide?

 

[jasonwill2]

Ok, I'll try this again.

I've TOUCHED supernatural entities that have physically affected me. Is that not proof enough?

 

[outhouse]

Ok, I'll try this again.

I've TOUCHED supernatural entities that have physically affected me. Is that not proof enough?

Nope

they would label that as percieved

 

[1137]

No, this is a "Religious Forum" so it's on you to prove that God does not exist. Unless you don't have any proof.

Nobody knows whether God exists or not? Then why not just go about your business and stop worrying about it? Maybe you're not supposed to know right now?

As I said, I couldn't care less if you believe in God or not. I am just here to stand on the side of evidence and reason as we are quite outnumbered here. I am not out to convince you to change your mind, I am out to show you why your reasoning is flawed and allow you to be a fideist.

We don't know that the sun will come up tomorrow? And how does that relate to God's existence or not?

Reading comprehension and fideism... The sun rising has nothing to do with God, it has to do with knowing / certainty. My example was that even though we may not be 100% sure of something, we can be as close to 100% as possible.

If all reason, evidence, and fact point in one direction the truth will not be the other direction? What fact proves that God does not exist?

Proves? None. Highly suggests? All the the things we know and theorized + evidence + reason in no way suggest there is a God or need a God to be true. There is no evidence of any God existing, there is nothing to support that God exists, there is no need for God to exist. We cannot 100% prove that God does not exist, just show why it is completely unlikely. The stories of God are manufactured in such a way that they cannot ever be proven 100% wrong, otherwise it wouldn't have been a very useful coping mechanism would it?

It does not take intelligence to make things move? How many Samurai swords have we found in volcanic lava? How many computers? How many Ferrari's? To you, a zillion perfect accidents happened all in a row.

you have officially convinced me you are a troll. I mean, really?! What intelligence is behind the Earth moving through space? What intelligence is behind a tree branch moving in the wind? Intelligence is not need to make things move, and I refuse to believe anyone capable of using a computer could not realize that. Which means that this is the last of our communications as you are obviously not serious in the quest for any knowledge.

Nature is impersonal? Really? So where does personality come from then if it's unnatural?

Personality comes from the way our brains interact. Nature itself and as a whole is not personal, but I now am quite sure you realize all of this.

You can't provide evidence that something doesn't exist? So if there is a box before us and I say there is something inside it and you say there isn't, why can't we just open the box and see?

Depends. If you say there is no cat in the box, we can open it and see. That is not the same as saying that cats do not exist and providing evidence of that. You could prove cats do exist, not that they don't. Again, this is obvious trolling and I am sure you are aware of this.

You had me going for months now, but I don't see the point in providing knowledge to troll just as do not to fideists. Enjoy! :sleep:

 

[1137]

Ok, I'll try this again.

I've TOUCHED supernatural entities that have physically affected me. Is that not proof enough?

I don't doubt that you truly and deeply believe that. But no, that is not proof at all. It can be proof to you, but that does not make the experience valid to all or apply to anyone else. I first posted in this thread that I do believe Gods and other spiritual beings and such exist, they exist in the mind. But interacting with beings that exist in your head isn't objectively valid. I have done this as well, and it is an exhilarating experience. I still do from time to time with the practice of creating a "thoughtform". Love doing it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

No probs man...So do you belive that is why God is untracable ?

Well the question DOES God exist, assumes it is possible to determine that the existence or lack thereof can be identified and verified... there is however several major obstacles to this; any intelligent existence in the natural universe is limited (at least theoretically) in terms of it's capacity to obtain information about itself or its surroundings, its capacity to store that information or process it, as well as its ability to develop a means by which to represent that awareness.

Spoiler: Limitations of Awareness: Information Gathering / Being Uninformed

We are limited in our capacity to be aware of our selves and environment, including the rules which define such an existence, one such limitation is our ability to identify phenomena.

The entity attempting to identify phenomena has natural limitations (natural sensory capacity), this provides the basis for identification of and understanding of a set of phenomena, it may also identify the effect of non understood phenomena. This natural capacity can be supplemented through synthetic functionality available to the entity (such as technology capable of monitoring radio waves) or the natural sensory functionality may alter to provide additional capacity.

However, there exists the possibility that neither the current natural nor synthetic sensory capabilities are able to either identify certain phenomena (for example available technology may not yet be advanced enough to do so) and the repercussions of those phenomena or gather sufficient information to understand them.

- - - - -

Therefore, if our awareness of phenomenon is at least theoretically limited - if we do not have the opportunity to detect some possible phenomenon, then we may be under the impression that if is not possible for us to detect something then it does not exist.

For the supernatural dimension, this is relevant because theoretically it is possible if for example some phenomenon in our detectable existence acts as a cause for some effect in an undetectable supernatural dimension. Likewise, incompletely or incorrectly understood phenomenon may be influenced by some characteristic or elements within a supernatural dimension we cannot currently identify.

Spoiler: Limitations of Comprehension: Information Analysis / Being Incorrect

First half is pretty uninteresting, skip to '- - - - -' if you prefer.

Firstly we have a limited capacity for data storage or analysis, at least theoretically - this can be simply demonstrated by way of meta-data (data which describes data)

It is possible to have meta-data about your own mind, however to have meta-data about that meta-data would either require the scope of the first set of meta data to preclude the subsequent meta-data or change of and/or insertion of the first set of meta-data would have the capacity to invalidate the second set (this is a recursive issue since one can have meta-data about meta-data about.... etc).

Furthermore to store the meta-data requires storage in addition to the storage requirements of the original data... since the capacity to have meta-data is recursive, the storage capacity requirements become infinite (and there is not an infinite amount of matter and energy in existence, therefore the capacity to utilise that matter and energy for data storage is also limited) - this ignores that devotion of resources to data storage diminishes the non infinite amount of energy and matter available to process that stored data.

Similarly if all matter and energy were instead used for development of processing capacity rather than storage, the maximum processing capability is not infinite and the storage capabilities for processed data is diminished.

- - - - -

The more intriguing component of our limited capacity to store or analyse data is the repercussions...

If we accept that there is a limitation on our capacity to understand the universe - including how it operates; then this becomes extremely important with regards to accepting the possibility of developing a FLAWED understanding, no matter how carefully we review the available data. We see this in a practical sense through the development an subsequent superseding of scientific theories and technological innovations.

Why is this important for the supernatural dimension? Because if we accept the possibility of having developed a flawed understanding of the universe, there exists the possibility that any conclusions we draw about the existence of a supernatural dimension MAY be flawed themselves.

For example, if our understanding of the universe precludes television, we might assume that a witch had shrunken people and forced them inside of a box.

Given the acceptance of a potentially flawed understanding of existence, one must however instead consider the possibility that they simply do not understand how it is that it seems there are little people in the box. For this reason, any phenomenon that contradict our understanding of the 'natural' order, do not HAVE to be 'super'natural, merely indicative of our own limitations (either of our understanding of the natural laws, or of the situation being evaluated according to that understanding).

Spoiler: Limitations of Conceptualisation: Information Abstraction / Being Philosophical

Philosophy is some times held as the answer to the above limitations (particularly with regard to identification and understanding of phenomenon). It is also the most abstract of the limitations and the most difficult to either describe to another or to grasp oneself, so please bear with me.

Philosophical inquiry is of necessity bounded by what can be determined by the entity as being capable of being understood (of having meaning ascribed) - not what is right, not what is sensible, not what is practical... what is capable of being understood by the entity based on its capacity to formulate concepts.

The formulation of concepts, the attribution of meaning relies on the entity's underlying understanding of ideas of terms and possibilities (not of what is possible to exist, but what is possible to be considered) - that which lies outside of the entities existing understanding of the conceivable - is essentially impossible for the entity to encompass within their philosophical processes unless there is a direct challenge to (and resolution of) that inconceivable status (most likely arising from sensory identification of not fully understood phenomenon or the clash of understandings resulting in cognitive dissonance requiring review)

- - - - -

The result of this is that we cannot formulate a line of philosophic inquiry that is so fundamentally alien to our understanding of reality as to defy its representation in concepts that we can conceive; yet this is sorely tested by attribution of nonsensical attributes to aspects envisaged within some supernatural dimension (such as being beyond logic or rationality - such an assertion inhibits ATTEMPTS at rational examination, thus limiting philosophical inquiry)

 

[jasonwill2]

Nope

they would label that as percieved

In any case, it is enough proof for me.

I don't doubt that you truly and deeply believe that. But no, that is not proof at all. It can be proof to you, but that does not make the experience valid to all or apply to anyone else. I first posted in this thread that I do believe Gods and other spiritual beings and such exist, they exist in the mind. But interacting with beings that exist in your head isn't objectively valid. I have done this as well, and it is an exhilarating experience. I still do from time to time with the practice of creating a "thoughtform". Love doing it.

Good point, however it is the best I got really. I can't say I got them on camera or anything, as far as I know I've only physically SEEN a spirit once, my magickal sense is mostly through physical touch, either direct contact or like an intense heat/electrocution feeling emenationg from an area.

Perhaps I can catch them on heat camera? Or perhaps that is just the closest thing my brain interprets as their presence... I do not know. Perhaps they are exotic energy or matter, or bits of uncreation.

Maybe... some day we will be able to isolate one and study it, but I don't think we can since we don't know what they are made of and hence how to detect one. I suspect that sometime in the future some electronic will be made and we will accidentally detect one with it, only to realize we discovered spirits, and then we will start to study them in detail.

 

[1137]

Jason, in all honesty I hope your way of perceiving this is the right one. If you find any way to make these experiences objectively valid I will be quite happy haha. For now, I lean the other way based on what I know.

 

[Koldo]

The complexity of the universe will be explained by science? It will, and whatever the scientists think is the First Cause of the universe will be equal to God.

So, for now, is God the singularity?