What evidence for God

[outhouse]

Your assertion that god created life is the theory. What we are asking for is the evidence to back up this theory.

I wouldnt even call it a theory, its more like a hypothisis at best that doesnt work.

Nature works

Why isn't life, God?

because its nature. what makes you think your one god out of a thousand is the only real one??

Why isn't this life divine?

I think you would have to use allot of imagination to call life divine

its only my opinion.

 

[Onkara]

I have to say your answer was very poetic.

I really don't want to be going in circle with this particular discussion because i think it will lead us both to exasperation which is not conducive to a continuing discussion.

So let us sum up the discussion so far:

1. We ask for evidence of god.
2. You assert life proves god.
3. I ask how life proves god.
4. You assert life proves god.

Your assertion that god created life is the theory. What we are asking for is the evidence to back up this theory.

Do you understand?

-Q

You know I understand. I am honestly amazed. Do you honestly think that your life isn't significant evidence? But lets stop now and enjoy another topic

 

[atanu]

Yes you do. Infact, your body is one of the only things you expereince. The body tries to take in as little outside information in as possible to compute the current information that you have.

No, because one still expereinces the world, even in sleep.

One should try to assert the experience of world, while in deep sleep.

One exists in deep sleep. Definitely. But in what form?

...

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You know I understand. I am honestly amazed. Do you honestly think that your life isn't significant evidence? But lets stop now and enjoy another topic

No i do not.

You see life as something that is created.

I look at the human body and i see the "design flaws" and think that it can't be created (or the creator is incompetent or stupid)

Take for example the cartilage present in the joints. It wears down with use, causing pain and disability. Now wouldn't a competent, intelligent creator be able to create cartilage that does not wear down or that regenerates?

Also the process of aging, the body slowly shuts down as it nears death. Would not a competent, intelligent creator be able to create a body that would keep working properly up until it was time to expire?

Then let's look at the human skeletal structure, it's not exactly ideal for the upright posture of modern day humans. Would not a competent, intelligent creator be able to create a body that would be more suited to an upright posture.

You see human existence as a miracle, but you do not see how fundamentally flawed it is.

-Q

 

[Onkara]

Thank you Q. I think that flaws, imperfections or limitations serve a purpose. I cannot think of one thing in the universe which is not subject to change. Birth and decay are as natural as night and day.

I don't imagine a separate creator-god. There is no evidence of that.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Thank you Q. I think that flaws, imperfections or limitations serve a purpose. I cannot think of one thing in the universe which is not subject to change. Birth and decay are as natural as night and day.

Yes you are correct but does it have to be so painful.

I don't imagine a separate creator-god. There is no evidence of that.

There is no evidence of a creator or a god.

 

[Onkara]

Yes you are correct but does it have to be so painful.

Pain is "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."

Whether there should or shouldn't there be pain, is just our desire. Fact is there is either pain or not, it comes with having tissue.

There is no evidence of a creator or a separate god.

Agreed with one significant word in bold red.

Edit, you realise I am using the Pantheist (or Hindu) defintion of God/Brahman here. I don't want us going around in circles trying to find Jehovah, when we already agree

 

[The Neo Nerd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain
Agreed with one significant word in bold red.

Ok where is the evidence for a creator then?

 

[Onkara]

Ok where is the evidence for a creator then?

I don't need evidence of a creator, please re-read the OP, it just wants evidence of God:

Simple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

Please see my edit above, you may have been replying when I added it. I am using Brahman or the pantheist version of "God" not Jehova or Allah or Jesus' father with the premise that "Creator and Creation are completely separate" We already agree on that it seems

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I don't need evidence of a creator, please re-read the OP, it just wants evidence of God:

Ok so what is the creator then?

 

[Sunstone]

Evidence for god?

There is, of course, the experience of god. That seems to be evidence for the existence of deity, although it is problematic.

By "experience of god", I am referring to what happens when subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while experiencing yet continues. I am certainly not referring to any mysterious sightings of shining old men with long white beards and thunderous voices who sit around on clouds all day.

The experience of god is almost universally reported (by those who have had such an experience) to be wholly compatible with the ontological existence of deity. There is, for most people, nothing in the experience to suggest that deity has no ontological existence. On the contrary, there are lots of folks who say the experience of god convinced them that god exists ontologically.

At the same time, there is nothing in the experience -- at least, nothing I've been able to find out about -- that is absolute proof deity has ontological existence. That is, it's true the experience gives every appearance that deity has ontological existence, but it gives no proof that deity has ontological existence.

 

[Onkara]

Ok so what is the creator then?

I hope you can tell me? I don't need to believe in creationism. I am happy with "existence".

 

[Onkara]

What is your personal conclusion Sunstone? I am not going to even attempt to argue, I would just like to know if you can summarise it or if you do not feel it is possible?

 

[Commoner]

Simple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?

A what? Never heard of it...

 

[atanu]

Ok so what is the creator then?

Consider this Quaxotic

You feel that you should own a house. Depending on strength of your desire you come to own a house eventually.

Do you see the creator?

...

 

[Sunstone]

What is your personal conclusion Sunstone? I am not going to even attempt to argue, I would just like to know if you can summarise it or if you do not feel it is possible?

My personal conclusion? (1) I think it's anyone's guess whether god ontologically exists or not. (2) I think there are still mysteries in this world that -- while probably open to eventual scientific explanation -- are currently dismissed as illusions or delusions. We are, in relation to some mysteries, where our ancestors of 500 or so years back were in regard to St. Elmo's fire. It's not that they merely did not know St. Elmo's fire was a natural phenomenon, but that they lacked at that time in history the science to even investigate it. They had no concepts of plasma, electricity, etc. Even if one or more of them thought that St. Elmo's fire was natural, that person would not have been able to explain St. Elmo's fire in natural terms. Hence, 500 years ago, you either believed St. Elmo's fire had a supernatural origin, or you skeptically dismissed that it even occurred. We are a bit like they were, only our mysteries are god, etc. We do not even consider the possibility -- most of us don't -- that god will someday be explained in terms of natural laws. Instead, the best most of get to that notion is to say that someday we will know what areas of the brain are responsible for our "hallucinations" of god. Well, I suspect that could be wildly speculative skepticism at work, and not necessarily well founded reason.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Consider this Quaxotic

You feel that you should own a house. Depending on strength of your desire you come to own a house eventually.

Do you see the creator?

...

Man i don't even see your point.

 

[atanu]

Evidence for god?

There is, of course, the experience of god. That seems to be evidence for the existence of deity, although it is problematic.

By "experience of god", I am referring to what happens when subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while experiencing yet continues. --- there are lots of folks who say the experience of god convinced them that god exists ontologically.

--- That is, it's true the experience gives every appearance that deity has ontological existence, but it gives no proof that deity has ontological existence.

The part highlighted in blue above is called the natural state of being (sahaja samadhi in Hindu parlance) or wakeful sleep or turiyatita.

It is obvious that when subject/object perception comes to an end (and yet awareness continues) one is fully aware of the fullness. One has come to experience the unbroken-undivided nature of reality. One has come to abide as the reality. One has come to the knowledge of one's nature as whole and infinite. One has come to the knowledge wherefrom there will not be a return to the faulty notion of bodies being Beings. This is peace. This is fearlessness.

So, this fullness existed, exists, and will exist irrespective of innumerable thoughts of division that divide it.

If this fullness is not Brahman then what further is worthwhile? This peace is also called the unborn - aja.

As per Vedanta, the beginningless truth is aja - unborn. Nothing whatsoever has been created. The Mind that sprouts from this fullness, without disturbing and tainting it a bit, is a desire, is a mere bundle of thought, which is the creator God and is less than the fullness.

...

 

[Zelar]

What else can adequately describe the existence of something rather than nothing? What other logical conclusion may one reach?

In other words, "I do not know the answer so I will make one up."


By the way, the Big Bang is NOT the beginning of the universe. It is only the beginning of the KNOWN universe. It is only the beginning of what we can see in space. Suppose you are standing right next to the furthest (planet/star/radiation/energy) whatever there is that came from the big bang and you used a spaceship to travel further outward, there would be "emptiness" infinitely or perhaps after eons of traveling, you come across more matter that did not spawn from the big bang. This is possible. Our known universe (a sum of all the matter and other stuff that spawned from the big bang) is only a spec of dust in the possibly infinity of "emptiness" beyond this coalition of "matter and stuff" just as Earth is in our galaxy.

Therefore, you can not say that the beginning of our known universe is the beginning of everything.



2nd, if god created everything, this question follows: Where did God come from?

You will answer with something like this: He always existed. <<<>>> Everything that exists could have always existed too.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There's yet to be any evidence of a god(s)/creator/higher being.