What proof do you have of God?

[tumbleweed41]

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

Would it shock you if I were to say I find such a philosophy delusional?

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Law of gravity.

There is something keeping you from doing so, I imagine. While technically it's an argument from history(the logical fallacy that reasons that just because something has always been true in the past, it will remain true in the future), it's surety is such that it is as close to 100% knowledge as the knowledge that you're typing on a keyboard.

 

[Ashir]

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.

What's to say that cause was not created by itself? And what's to say that the existence of the universe and beyond is infinite?
So you're saying God could not be an intelligent designer? Very interesting.

 

[Ashir]

Law of gravity.

There is something keeping you from doing so, I imagine. While technically it's an argument from history(the logical fallacy that reasons that just because something has always been true in the past, it will remain true in the future), it's surety is such that it is as close to 100% knowledge as the knowledge that you're typing on a keyboard.

I could argue that but I feel I should save it for the Philosophy forum for later.

 

[Ashir]

Would it shock you if I were to say I find such a philosophy delusional?

No, but I would find it wrong unless you heard the justification to it which I will post in the philosophy section another time. If then you decide it is delusional that is perfectly logical.

 

[Sir Doom]

@Sir Doom most religious texts address God as a male.

Hahaha, what's your point?

I'm pretty sure your tag says agnostic atheist. Who gives a crap what a religious book says? Do you? I kind of doubt it. Or are you only looking for proof of those particular gods featured in ancient writings? Isn't it funny how specifics make this argument so damn hard?

PS: Without 'knowing' you would have to rely exclusively on 'faith' and vice versa. That's why it would be difficult to operate without either. Because that's impossible. Think about it.

 

[Ashir]

@Sir Doom not unless you don't believe anything.

The texts pretty much determine your beliefs.

 

[Riverwolf]

@Sir Doom not unless you don't believe anything.

The texts pretty much determine your beliefs.

...not really. The Sages I trust have pretty much given the go ahead to investigate for ourselves. I do not trust those who teach paths that require blind faith in all that they say.

 

[Ashir]

Did you not admit you did earlier?
Is it not illegal in Christianity to blaspheme?

 

[Ashir]

or commit heresy

 

[Curious George]

@Sir Doom not unless you don't believe anything.

The texts pretty much determine your beliefs.

I wouldn't be too presumptuous about anyone's beliefs.

To say we don't know anything is fallacious as it contradicts itself. Your argument doesn't hold ground in the philosophy section. I am still waiting for your refute of my earlier proof.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What's to say that cause was not created by itself?

Then that would make it even greater and more independent, thus more easier to slide the puzzle in to fit the label of "god" on it.

And what's to say that the existence of the universe and beyond is infinite?

Doubtful

So you're saying God could not be an intelligent designer? Very interesting.

Could be, could be not. I personally think they are intelligent but that's just me.

 

[Riverwolf]

Did you not admit you did earlier?
Is it not illegal in Christianity to blaspheme?

I'm not Christian. I'm Hindu.

 

[George-ananda]

Please, if you know you can't debate well or have not looked into philosophy much, I ask that you do not post, no offense.

As you said, we're a picky lot with words. I think we all know there is no 'proof'. Your question is basically; 'why do you believe in God?'.

I personally believe in God, not on blind faith but on years worth of reason and logic. It comes from my study of the paranormal where I concluded the atheist-materialist understanding of the universe doesn't cut it. Also from my study of the eastern (Indian) masters who I believe through the deepest level of their conciousness have experienced God. The explanations and teachings they have given us are, in my opinion, the most profound I've ever heard.

So, I can't give proof, but I believe in God beyond a reasonable doubt, and my reasoning is more than just faith; it's also from logic and reason.

 

[Ashir]

Not meaning to be rash with my first post, it's just that my posts often attract people who are completely devoid of the slightest logic.
So because atheism couldn't answer some questions you resorted to such a dramatically unsupported theory to explain them? Why can you people not simply accept we cannot know some things for certain or at least wait for science to address them powerfully?
Do you have evidence for that? If not, you're pointlessly supporting an unsupported theory with an unsupported theory.

 

[Sir Doom]

@Sir Doom not unless you don't believe anything.

Oh, I see. Somehow you manage to believe things without knowledge and that is somehow different than having faith without evidence? Thanks for clearing that up Muddy Waters I can now see the top of the lake in stark relief.

The texts pretty much determine your beliefs.

Speak for yourself.

 

[Curious George]

Not meaning to be rash with my first post, it's just that my posts often attract people who are completely devoid of the slightest logic.
So because atheism couldn't answer some questions you resorted to such a dramatically unsupported theory to explain them? Why can you people not simply accept we cannot know some things for certain or at least wait for science to address them powerfully?
Do you have evidence for that? If not, you're pointlessly supporting an unsupported theory with an unsupported theory.

Post #12.... still waiting

 

[Ashir]

I already admitted I phrased the question wrong. I don't know how to put it, but yes he exists, but you're talking about the way dreams exist. Evidence he is living, maybe? I don't know how to put it.

 

[Riverwolf]

or commit heresy

No such thing in Hinduism.

 

[Ashir]

well I'm off to bed, it's 5 in the morning.