What proof do you have of God?

[Riverwolf]

My philosophy dictates that we can't 'know' anything, so it's valid in my eyes.

I think it's pretty safe to say we "know" that if we walked off a building, we'd fall, and that if it were high enough, we'd die from that fall.

 

[Ashir]

@Riverwolf I still think you know what I meant.
@Curious George, that discussion is for another forum.

 

[Riverwolf]

this thread can be closed,

No, it isn't. Even if you don't post in it, everyone else can. Therefore, it isn't closed.

 

[Ashir]

@Riverwold not for me.
@Sir Doom most religious texts address God as a male.

 

[Sir Doom]

My philosophy dictates that we can't 'know' anything, so it's valid in my eyes.

Pretty much.
Not really. I don't have 'faith' in anything, or at least I haven't detected it.

So no 'knowing' and no 'faith' either? That must be terribly difficult to manage.

 

[Ashir]

I didn't directly ask for it. I just confirmed I was okay if it were.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not proofs but my reason:

There is a first cause, by definition, yet at the same time something cannot come from nothing, that's the paradox of the beginning, but we're 100% sure that there is a first cause, because... well it's just obvious that there has to be a first. This first thing must be completely independent and we're all dependent on it. It's the only thing independent in existence, thus it is unique and as it isn't dependent it must not have had to be created, thus it has no beginning. It's unique and independent, we're all dependent on it, and it has no beginning, that can be said to be a god. If I have to name God, I'm going to call it The Source. If you don't agree with this definition, I don't know what a God is, but that's what it seems to me that all gods have in common.

 

[Ashir]

So no 'knowing' and no 'faith' either? That must be terribly difficult to manage.

Not really.

 

[Riverwolf]

@Riverwolf I still think you know what I meant.

I don't really. You're being too vague, and poorly choosing your words. Be more specific.

If you make the absolute statement that we can't "know" anything, then my counter to that absolute statement is valid.

If what you said is not what you meant, then why did you say it?

If you are saying that we can't "know" that there is a God, or other supernatural elements, then even as a theist, I agree. I believe in Gods, but I don't "know" They exist with 100% certainty. But you should have specified that.

 

[Ashir]

Not proofs but my reason:

There is a first cause, by definition, yet at the same time something cannot come from nothing, that's the paradox of the beginning, but we're 100% sure that there is a first cause, because... well it's just obvious that there has to be a first. This first thing must be completely independent and we're all dependent on it. It's the only thing independent in existence, thus it is unique and as it isn't dependent it must not have had to be created, thus it has no beginning. It's unique and independent, we're all dependent on it, and it has no beginning, that can be said to be a god. If I have to name God, I'm going to call it The Source. If you don't agree with this definition, I don't know what a God is, but that's what it seems to me that all gods have in common.

Finally.
How do you know something cannot come from nothing? Because it's never been done before is not strictly evidence, it is merely being guided by a pattern.
It's far from obvious. What if there was no first cause? If you are to accept the notion that God has no cause is it hard to accept that the universe, or something even bigger, does not have one? What if the universe created itself? We do not have enough knowledge to discard this possibility.

 

[Riverwolf]

@Riverwold not for me.

You seem to be participating as much as you were before.

 

[Curious George]

@Curious George, that discussion is for another forum.

Wait a minute- You asked for a proof for God, I supplied one. You don't want to argue it with logic; instead, you attack others for questioning you. Then you make illogical statements. What am I supposed to think? If you want to make illogical statements that are very much counter to your request that people have a philosophical background to entertain your time, then you seem to be only picking fights. Is your book on communication and sociology? That is all I can see that is being tested here.

 

[Ashir]

And no, I don't really. You're being too vague, and poorly choosing your words. Be more specific.

If you make the absolute statement that we can't "know" anything, then my counter to that absolute statement is valid.

If what you said is not what you meant, then why did you say it?

If you are saying that we can't "know" that there is a God, or other supernatural elements, then even as a theist, I agree. I believe in Gods, but I don't "know" They exist with 100% certainty. But you should have specified that.

I'll accept that then. My apologies; English isn't my preferred language.

 

[Ashir]

Wait a minute- You asked for a proof for God, I supplied one. You don't want to argue it with logic; instead, you attack others for questioning you. Then you make illogical statements. What am I supposed to think? If you want to make illogical statements that are very much counter to your request that people have a philosophical background to entertain your time, then you seem to be only picking fights. Is your book on communication and sociology? That is all I can see that is being tested here.

What book?
That's your opinion, and I don't see how this has relevance to the quote. Now can we stop straying off topic please?

 

[Ashir]

You seem to be participating as much as you were before.

Not for me as in, it is not safe for me to say that if I jump off a building I would fall down, I don't have enough knowledge for that.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Finally.
How do you know something cannot come from nothing? Because it's never been done before is not strictly evidence, it is merely being guided by a pattern.
It's far from obvious. What if there was no first cause? If you are to accept the notion that God has no cause is it hard to accept that the universe, or something even bigger, does not have one? What if the universe created itself? We do not have enough knowledge to discard this possibility.

Nor do we have enough knowledge to discard the possibility that a First Cause does exist.

All we know is that we cannot show that a cause is necessary, or unnecessary.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'll accept that then. My apologies; English isn't my preferred language.

Ah. I honestly couldn't tell.

And speaking as a native speaker of English (who also doesn't yet know how to speak other languages, but is changing that) I don't blame you one bit. I never miss an opportunity to whine that it's a complete mess of a language. ^_^ (Especially when conveying religious/spiritual matters.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Finally.
How do you know something cannot come from nothing? Because it's never been done before is not strictly evidence, it is merely being guided by a pattern.
It's far from obvious. What if there was no first cause? If you are to accept the notion that God has no cause is it hard to accept that the universe, or something even bigger, does not have one? What if the universe created itself? We do not have enough knowledge to discard this possibility.

If there was no first cause, there would be 0 cause, thus we wouldn't exist.

You might have misinterpreted that, what I meant by something can't come from nothing is that the First Cause is just that, the "first" cause. That is the reason I accept the notion that God has no cause.

I think I didn't make it clear, sorry I'm a bad explain-er. Whatever the first cause was, (and it doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious critter which I personally think it is for faithful reasons) by definition was God, being that it's unique, independent, we're all dependent on it, it's the source, it's the absolute, and it has no beginning.

It's kind of like the seed to a plant, the seed was what caused the plant to go. Now, the seed is dependent on a whole bunch of other stuff in real life, but if it there was absolutely nothing else in existence but a seed that grew a plant, the seed would create the first thing to ever exist, and every electron on that plant is dependent on that seed, because if the seed had not existed nothing would, thus the seed is god to every electron on the plant.

 

[Curious George]

Finally.
How do you know something cannot come from nothing? Because it's never been done before is not strictly evidence, it is merely being guided by a pattern.
It's far from obvious. What if there was no first cause? If you are to accept the notion that God has no cause is it hard to accept that the universe, or something even bigger, does not have one? What if the universe created itself? We do not have enough knowledge to discard this possibility.

I really hope you aren't going to be writing your book on this without studying Current Cosmogony. For there are now models of physics which describe precisely this, a universe without a cause. Not that you don't bring up a valid argument against first cause, but nothing novel. So did you come just to refute easy claims?

 

[Ashir]

Nor do we have enough knowledge to discard the possibility that a First Cause does exist.

All we know is that we cannot show that a cause is necessary, or unnecessary.

You're preaching a lesson I've already absorbed. This is why I'm agnostic.