The myriad proofs for the exsitence of God

[dorsk188]

There are a lot of these stories in my life now, but these are just two. I have found that whenever I place my trust in God to see me through even the most impossible that I have never gone wanting.

I appreciate you sharing your story, and I understand these must have been legitimately inspiring and life-changing experiences for you. But by the same token, you can't ignore the millions of Christians who die each year, praying to get better. You can't ignore the senseless fatalities of treatable diseases all across the globe. And you can't ignore that sometimes people just get better. And it's a mystery, sure, but that doesn't necessitate a God at the helm. It seems more likely to me that there are variables that we don't understand at work. When we make medical predictions that turn out to be wrong, there are thousands of variables that we don't know, we don't even know what we don't know.

I truly don't mean to sound cruel here, but I can explain your entire life story, or any other series of seemingly impossible events, without involving God. It's luck. Some people are going to dodge the bullet. Some are going to stumble onto riches. Some are going to die when a truck smashes through their living room.

By the way, I am not bitter or misanthropic or anything like that. I've had a fine life, no major complaints. If my life was perfect or a nightmare, it doesn't affect whether or not there is a god. In any case, thank you for sharing.

It's not really semantics. An atheist is one who says there is no God, and the agnostic says that they don't know, or that there is no way of knowing. They are two separate viewpoints. I simply just want to be clear on the stance you have.

Weak and strong atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I would never make the claim: "there are no gods". I don't know that. No one could**. Logically speaking, a god would be able to hide him or herself. But I don't believe in any. Some call it weak atheist, negative atheism, or soft atheism. It's still atheism.

On a seperate note, I'm a strong atheist when it comes to certain gods. Thor, Isis, Apollo, etc. Some gods are internally inconsistent or laughably absurd. The Biblical God is certainly the first (and also the second, in my opinion).

** But just because I can't know that there are no gods, it's certainly possible to know if there is a god with sufficient evidence. I'm not making a backdoor agnostic claim (God is unknowable), just an intellectually honest one (God could be unknowable).

I meant the the same mode of logic could be applicable to God as what you've applied to dark energy. I did not mean to state that God is the force that we call dark energy. Sorry if I was unclear.

No, you were clear. I was trying to create a clear distinction in saying: "We believe there must be something we call dark energy because these observations don't make any sense otherwise". There are no observations that require "something we call God" for an explanation. Only broad redefinitions of God fit into the major gaps in our knowledge, and even then "God" serves as a placeholder for "we don't know". (By the way "dark energy" is just a placeholder for we don't know, too.)

Yes, in principle, you could make observations that necessitate God without observing a God directly. But I'm not assuming that those observations exist or ever will. If I'm presented with evidence (as I have been for dark energy), then I will believe that something must be out there that we might call God. (Though the term is so vague that it's not particularly helpful when trying to explain reality.)

 

[Willamena]

And yet the matter ought to be settled easily, for if there is one, utterly compelling and self-evident proof for the existence of God then all others are at once made unnecessary and irrelevant. Is there one? If there is let us hear it.

The next obvious question, then, is what is "God"? What is it that I'm to prove?

 

[logician]

Most religions are a matter of faith, not proof, so a thiest trying to "prove" a god exists is missing the point.

That said, there certainly is no hard evidence accepted universally that any god exists.

 

[cottage]

The next obvious question, then, is what is "God"? What is it that I'm to prove?

That ('What is God?') is my question. So please explain first what the term means to you and then you can give your proof.

 

[Willamena]

That ('What is God?') is my question. So please explain first what the term means to you and then you can give your proof.

The point is that you are demanding "proof" of something that you haven't even defined. How would you recognize a proper "proof" of it?

 

[cottage]

The point is that you are demanding "proof" of something that you haven't even defined. How would you recognize a proper "proof" of it?

Because any judgement would be based on the claim or claims. How else?

The matter, at its ground, whatever the attributes or any associated doctrines, concerns the supposed existence of a supernatural being, a thing that transcends experience. I'm quite relaxed about what we call this entity and the term 'God' is quite acceptable to me. So, first off, the question is what is the proof for this extra-experiential, creator being? Any futher, specific attributes awarded to this concept will also need to be demonstrated.

 

[Willamena]

Because any judgement would be based on the claim or claims.

How can you judge fairly a claim of something that you haven't even defined? Yes, some definition is inherent in the claim, but is it meaningful enough to impart sense to you?

The matter, at its ground, whatever the attributes or any associated doctrines, concerns the supposed existence of a supernatural being, a thing that transcends experience. I'm quite relaxed about what we call this entity and the term 'God' is quite acceptable to me. So, first off, the question is what is the proof for this extra-experiential, creator being? Any futher, specific attributes awarded to this concept will also need to be demonstrated.

"Supernatural" as in a defying of nature? Or something unnatural? Or as inexplicability? Or as explicability, but not yet explained? Or something else?
"Being" as in an entity of consciousness? Or an entity of matter? Or a state of existence? Or something else?
What does it mean to "transcend" experience? Is that, in itself, not an experience? What is the term 'God' acceptable about?

You can consider these questions rhetorical. The point is that in defining we give shape (form) to all the things in our sphere of understanding. A claim made by another tells us the world they've shaped, but if we haven't shaped it for ourselves it cannot be meaningful. We could as easily, and uselessly, be asked to provide proof of gobbledigook. And we could as easily, and meaninglessly (and meaningfully), point our finger and say, "look."

 

[cottage]

How can you judge fairly a claim of something that you haven't even defined? Yes, some definition is inherent in the claim, but is it meaningful enough to impart sense to you?


"Supernatural" as in a defying of nature? Or something unnatural? Or as inexplicability? Or as explicability, but not yet explained? Or something else?
"Being" as in an entity of consciousness? Or an entity of matter? Or a state of existence? Or something else?
What does it mean to "transcend" experience? Is that, in itself, not an experience? What is the term 'God' acceptable about?

You can consider these questions rhetorical. The point is that in defining we give shape (form) to all the things in our sphere of understanding. A claim made by another tells us the world they've shaped, but if we haven't shaped it for ourselves it cannot be meaningful. We could as easily, and uselessly, be asked to provide proof of gobbledigook. And we could as easily, and meaninglessly (and meaningfully), point our finger and say, "look."

I think we're out in the long grass with this discussion. Let me put this in very simple terms. Someone speaks of his/her belief in God. I say what and where is God? It's not for me to prescribe the terms of reference prior to hearing the arguments. Arguments to God may be inferential or logical, from facts concerning the known word, from sufficient reason, from morality, from religious experience, from a first cause, from design or from pure logic alone. Am I expected to lay out a Theory of Everything including an entire syllabus of my objections in advance of hearing the case a believer might make? <cottage wipes brow> :no:

 

[Willamena]

I think we're out in the long grass with this discussion. Let me put this in very simple terms. Someone speaks of his/her belief in God. I say what and where is God? It's not for me to prescribe the terms of reference prior to hearing the arguments. Arguments to God may be inferential or logical, from facts concerning the known word, from sufficient reason, from morality, from religious experience, from a first cause, from design or from pure logic alone. Am I expected to lay out a Theory of Everything including an entire syllabus of my objections in advance of hearing the case a believer might make? <cottage wipes brow> :no:

It is for you to prescribe the terms of reference by which you will address and judge a thing based on your own database of knowledge. It is for you to hear the arguments; but if you can make no sense of "god" because it is not a part of that database, because you have not defined it, you will have no basis on which to make your judgement about the arguments.

So I ask again. . . What is "god"? Unless you have that answer, I could "proof" till my face is blue.

 

[Erebus]

The matter, at its ground, whatever the attributes or any associated doctrines, concerns the supposed existence of a supernatural being, a thing that transcends experience. I'm quite relaxed about what we call this entity and the term 'God' is quite acceptable to me. So, first off, the question is what is the proof for this extra-experiential, creator being? Any futher, specific attributes awarded to this concept will also need to be demonstrated.

If I told you that you're looking at God whenever you open your eyes would you accept that as proof of God? Or does God also have to be anthropomorphic?

I think Willamena is trying to remind you that the Abrahamic concept of God is simply one amongst a multitude.

 

[McBell]

The point is that you are demanding "proof" of something that you haven't even defined. How would you recognize a proper "proof" of it?

Seems to me that you are now merely avoiding answering the question.

I mean, really, he flat out stated that you can define "God" however you want.
Yet you still prefer to argue over red herring semantics even after he flat out stated you can define "god" in any way you want.

Now why would you argue semantics even after being told that you have free reign to specify the semantics that are going to be used?

One would think that a person with free reign to set the definitions as they like and THEN present their proof would have absolutely no problem in proving anything they want.

 

[McBell]

I think Willamena is trying to remind you that the Abrahamic concept of God is simply one amongst a multitude.

then she is doing a rather poor job at it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Do you have an ultimate proof of why god doesn't exist?

Depends on "which God" you mean

 

[cottage]

It is for you to prescribe the terms of reference by which you will address and judge a thing based on your own database of knowledge. It is for you to hear the arguments; but if you can make no sense of "god" because it is not a part of that database, because you have not defined it, you will have no basis on which to make your judgement about the arguments.

So I ask again. . . What is "god"? Unless you have that answer, I could "proof" till my face is blue.

This, with respect, is utterly absurd. Just what are the contents of this prescribed 'database' that must be inspected for suitability before I dare to question someone's beliefs?

Fortunately, judging by your other posts on this forum, I don't accept for a single second that you really believe that is the way argument is conducted. Perhaps the fudge and obfuscation is because you felt backed into a corner?

I'll leave it there. <cottage bows gracefully)

 

[Willamena]

This, with respect, is utterly absurd. Just what are the contents of this prescribed 'database' that must be inspected for suitability before I dare to question someone's beliefs?

Everything you know, as you've defined it.

Fortunately, judging by your other posts on this forum, I don't accept for a single second that you really believe that is the way argument is conducted. Perhaps the fudge and obfuscation is because you felt backed into a corner?

I'll leave it there. <cottage bows gracefully)

It's not about arguing. It's about being able to address a topic with any credibility.

 

[cottage]

Everything you know, as you've defined it.



It's not about arguing. It's about being able to address a topic with any credibility.

Uh! But I haven't defined it!! I'm asking you to define it! Explain to me what you mean by 'God'. Tell me what it is and where it is to be found?

The credibility test is very simple isn't it? Tell me what you mean by 'God', and by my analysis it will be evident whether or not I am a credible and worthy critic. Now over to you. And will you please answer the question without further prevarication.

 

[Willamena]

Uh! But I haven't defined it!! I'm asking you to define it! Explain to me what you mean by 'God'. Tell me what it is and where it is to be found?

But then it would be an entry in your database under the heading of "Willamena's version of God" (of myriad versions). You will still have not defined "God".

The credibility test is very simple isn't it? Tell me what you mean by 'God', and by my analysis it will be evident whether or not I am a credible and worthy critic. Now over to you. And will you please answer the question without further prevarication.

The question: What is God? I cannot answer it, as it is unanswerable. It's also the wrong question, but all that's beside the point. The point is that if you have not defined "God", then all the answers in the world won't satisfy you.

 

[cottage]

But then it would be an entry in your database under the heading of "Willamena's version of God" (of myriad versions). You will still have not defined "God".


The question: What is God? I cannot answer it, as it is unanswerable. It's also the wrong question, but all that's beside the point. The point is that if you have not defined "God", then all the answers in the world won't satisfy you.

This has to be one of the most comically evasive responses I've ever come across on any forum. You are asking me to define your beliefs! I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by 'God'. Your reply that you cannot answer the straightforward question is contradicted by your very first sentence where you fear to tell me lest it 'enters my database', whatever that is supposed to mean! And you contradict yourself for a second time by refusing to answer because you presume to know that the answers won't satisfy me! This constant changing tack is certainly amusing. I look forward with glee to your next response.

 

[Willamena]

This has to be one of the most comically evasive responses I've ever come across on any forum. You are asking me to define your beliefs!

I am not in any way, shape or form asking for that. Where did you get that from?
(Nevermind: I don't really want to know.)

I'm simply asking you to explain what you mean by 'God'. Your reply that you cannot answer the straightforward question is contradicted by your very first sentence where you fear to tell me lest it 'enters my database', whatever that is supposed to mean! And you contradict yourself for a second time by refusing to answer because you presume to know that the answers won't satisfy me! This constant changing tack is certainly amusing. I look forward with glee to your next response.

"Fear to tell you lest it enter your database"??

Okay, I give up.

 

[McBell]

Okay, I give up.

Give up what?
Avoiding the question?