Proof of a Deity

[Sarkus]

And then there's the question of "what caused the god"?

If someone can explain to me how you can have a cause without a preceeding cause?

How can the "god" be "first cause" without something causing him to create, and something causing that... and that... and that... ad infinitum?
Unless, of course, you wrap up the "ad infinitum" causes and define all of them leading up to the creation of the universe as a single uncaused cause (i.e. God) - but then this is just definition without explaining anything.

If someone can explain to me, other than through definition, how "god" can be uncaused... then that would be a start.

 

[rjr6]

How would you go about proving it? So far we've only been able to work our way through some of the mechanics involved. Even if we were to discover tomorrow that M-Theory is absolute scientific fact, we still wouldn't be able to say whether or not the branes weren't just God's kneecaps.

That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.

 

[Sarkus]

That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.

Surely first the onus is on the theist to provide a definition of "god" that can be subjected to testing, no? But if theists squirm around such by claiming that god is outside of testing then there can be, by definition, no proof.

So... please come up with a definition of a god that can be subjected to testing, and then I'm sure people will come up with tests to see if it exists or not.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Not that you speak for atheists, but I here from atheists I talk with that they don't believe because there is no proof. Which seems all well and good, but why don't atheists establish a parameter for a proof so theists had an idea what they were wanting, rather than some sort of personal affirmation for themselves?

They have many times. For example, praying a lost limb back, or a block of wood into diamond, or a severly retarded person into an smart person.

 

[spidergoat]

That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.

Theists also tend to define God in such a way that defies testing. I think on purpose. Nevertheless there are notions put forward about what God actually does. Creates life? Not really, evolution explains how that can be accomplished without intelligence. Answers prayers? Testing of this shows no prayer effect. Creates morality? It seems to cause immorality as much as create morality, but no, morality seems a part of intelligent life, and in any case, religious people wind up in jail even more than atheists.

 

[ggazoo]

I look at it like this:

If you are interviewing someone for a job, you can do all the research that you want. You can look at their resumé, check out their references, do a complete background check... everything that makes you as rationally certain as possible that they are the right person for the job. But, at some point, you're going to have to take a chance on that person; it other words, make a personal commitment to them. It's only then that you will get to certainty. You'll have a chance to see how they perform, and whether or not alll of their credentials hold true.

For Christians, it works the same for a personal relationship with God.

Now, the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society. When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say respect for religion is bad.

If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you make yourself love something that has no apparent manifestation except in our minds?

 

[Nasor]

I look at it like this:

If you are interviewing someone for a job, you can do all the research that you want. You can look at their resumé, check out their references, do a complete background check... everything that makes you as rationally certain as possible that they are the right person for the job. But, at some point, you're going to have to take a chance on that person; it other words, make a personal commitment to them. It's only then that you will get to certainty. You'll have a chance to see how they perform, and whether or not alll of their credentials hold true.

For Christians, it works the same for a personal relationship with God.

A better analogy would be a person applying for a job and claiming that they have magical powers that will benefit your business, but won't provide a demonstration or give you any evidence.

Contrary to what many theists like to imagine, most atheists do not demand iron-clad proof before they believe in god. Rather, they simply want some type of serious evidence. Most atheists do not consider other people's subjective, internal experiences or 2000+ year old books full of stories of talking snakes or people conjuring things from thin air to be "serious evidence." And beyond that, there doesn’t really seem to be any evidence. Religious figures can’t predict the future. Prayer does not affect reality in any measurable way. Natural disasters strike atheist and theists equally.

Now, the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.

The thing is, after talking to many theists I feel a already have a pretty good understanding of why people believe in god. The vast majority of theists seem to believe in god for one of three reasons:

1) The idea is appealing to them and they are able to simply make themselves believe in things that sound appealing. These people will often give themselves away by asking atheists questions like "Don't you want eternal life?" or even bluntly say things like "I believe in god because I want to go to heaven."

2)They were indoctrinated at a very early age and now can't bring themselves to critically evaluate something that they have always assumed is true. Often they have built so much of their own identity upon the idea of a god that they feel lost or like their life would be pointless if they stopped believing.

3)They have some sort of subjective, internal experience that leads them to believe god exists. Usually this is something along the lines of "feeling his presence" or some such. I cynically suspect that most of these people really all fall into categories 1 and/or 2.

Of course there are many other reasons why theists might believe in god, but the majority of people seem to fall into those categories. And before anyone accuses me of making this up, I’d like to point out that most theists will explicitly tell you one of the three above reasons if you ask them for an explanation of why they believe in god.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Proof of God was put forward to me by my old Sunday school teacher. She said that if I were to pray to god for whatever and one day that whatever manifested itself then that's proof of God. Simple...don't know why this is so difficult.

 

[Balerion]

That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist either wasn't indoctrinated as a child, or just never really bought it if he was. I am more towards the latter, as I did go to church as a kid, and even served as an altar boy (nobody touched by naughty bits, though...which, considering how may priests touched young boys, INCLUDING my priest, kind of leaves me wondering he just didn't find me attractive...great, now I'm ugly), but I never really bought into the whole thing. Not when I was signing the songs or when I was taking communion or when I was kneeling in prayer. I just never believed it.

So the burden of proof, therefore, is on the theists. They are the ones who indoctrinate their young with these stories, a practice without which there would be far less, if any, theists in the world. So they need to be able to convince grown ups, ones who either didn't buy the indoctrination or who didn't suffer it, that a god exists. We don't have to convince you of anything, as you are the one who is believing in something you can't see.

 

[Yorda]

There cannot be a first of anything. It implies there was a point where nothing existed. If that were true then there would be nothing to cause an effect, and we couldn't be here. I.e. nothing could have ever begun.

isn't space nothing? if it is, then something can come from it, because scientists have seen particles suddenly appear from vacuum.

also, if the universe has always existed, why hasn't all life "already" died? scientists say that the entropy in the universe is increasing. they say that all stars will eventually run out of energy, and the universe will be lifeless and empty. so if the universe has always existed, why hasn't that already happened? where does it get all the energy for its perpetual motion?

btw, if the universe has existed forever, then nothing caused it. but how can nothing cause anything?

It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause.

everything has a cause except everything/universe? what a funny statement.

This means that a god is not a necessity and that it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that the universe is infinite.

i agree that the universe has always existed, but i think there still has to be something that causes it to exist eternally. it doesn't make any sense otherwise. it would be a universe without an explanation. it has to make sense. the universe is not nonsensical.

 

[Yorda]

How can the "god" be "first cause" without something causing him to create, and something causing that... and that... and that... ad infinitum?

everything that is visible must be caused by something, but invisible things don't need to be caused.

infinite "causes" means that nothing caused it.

what causes the invisible being to create? it is the invisible being itself. what causes me to write this? me.

 

[ggazoo]

The thing is, after talking to many theists I feel a already have a pretty good understanding of why people believe in god. The vast majority of theists seem to believe in god for one of three reasons:

1) The idea is appealing to them and they are able to simply make themselves believe in things that sound appealing. These people will often give themselves away by asking atheists questions like "Don't you want eternal life?" or evenbluntly say things like "I believe in god because I want to go to heaven."

2)They were indoctrinated at a very early age and now can't bring themselves to critically evaluate something that they have always assumed is true. Often they have built so much of their own identity upon the idea of a god that they feel lost or like their life would be pointless if they stopped believing.

3)They have some sort of subjective, internal experience that leads them to believe god exists. Usually this is something along the lines of "feeling his presence" or some such. I cynically suspect that most of these people really all fall into categories 1 and/or 2.

Let me throw this back to you. Conversely, I've learned that is never just one reason for belief or disbelief in God. There are always 3 basic reasons for why people believe, and why people disbelieve.

1. Intellectual
You read the arguments for belief and find them compelling, and you believe. If you think the arguments don't stack up, you don't believe. It's the intellectual, or reasoning proper.

2. Personal
One thing that I've found in people that I've personally met, or have chatted with on a message board, is that nobody believes or disbelieves in God purely for intellectual reasons. There are always personal reasons. An interesting tidbit: most people, at some point in their lives, will go through a very trying time where they are dealing with a terrible experience (tragedy, disappointment). Some people interpret that in meaning they that need God to help get them through that. Others who have the exact same experiences interpret that in meaning that they can't believe in a God who can lets stuff like that happen.

3. Social
This falls under the category of the sociology of knowledge, that says that the people that are in your community, or the community that you want to be part of, that their beliefs tend to be more plausible than the beliefs of the people in the communities that you don't like or don't want to be part of. You believe or don't believe because of the social support.

Those are the 3 reasons. Now, what you can't do, is reduce belief or non-belief to just one of those reasons. It's always all 3. It's wrong and almost exploitative to say that one's position is based only on reasoning and another's is based on cultural and personal reasons.

 

[Sarkus]

everything that is visible must be caused by something, but invisible things don't need to be caused.

If you're talking "invisible" as in beyond detection - then these are akin to something that doesn't exist... and we all know that something that doesn't exist also doesn't need to be created.

 

[Nasor]

Those are the 3 reasons. Now, what you can't do, is reduce belief or non-belief to just one of those reasons. It's always all 3. It's wrong and almost exploitative to say that one's position is based only on reasoning and another's is based on cultural and personal reasons.

Atheists are usually atheists because of reason and serious evaluation of evidence, while christians are usually christians for emotional reasons. You might not like it, but that doesn't change reality. Like I said, people's reasons for being christian generally aren't complicated - they like the idea that they have a special, powerful friend who is always with them and looking out for them, who they can always talk to, who will help them when they need it, who gives them purpose in life, and who will allow them to continue to exist after they die. Of course that fact that they want all this to be true doesn't have any impact on whether or not it actually is true, but they don't let that stop them.

 

[rjr6]

Surely first the onus is on the theist to provide a definition of "god" that can be subjected to testing, no? But if theists squirm around such by claiming that god is outside of testing then there can be, by definition, no proof.

So... please come up with a definition of a god that can be subjected to testing, and then I'm sure people will come up with tests to see if it exists or not.

This post addresses my conundrum that inspired the question. Why do atheists say they don't believe in God because there is no proof? I know that may sound stupid, but please give it some thought. And maybe most atheists don't say that( no proof). I don't know, thus the thread.

 

[rjr6]

They have many times. For example, praying a lost limb back, or a block of wood into diamond, or a severly retarded person into an smart person.

Why would any of those things prove the existence of a deity?

 

[rjr6]

The difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist either wasn't indoctrinated as a child, or just never really bought it if he was. I am more towards the latter, as I did go to church as a kid, and even served as an altar boy (nobody touched by naughty bits, though...which, considering how may priests touched young boys, INCLUDING my priest, kind of leaves me wondering he just didn't find me attractive...great, now I'm ugly), but I never really bought into the whole thing. Not when I was signing the songs or when I was taking communion or when I was kneeling in prayer. I just never believed it.

So the burden of proof, therefore, is on the theists. They are the ones who indoctrinate their young with these stories, a practice without which there would be far less, if any, theists in the world. So they need to be able to convince grown ups, ones who either didn't buy the indoctrination or who didn't suffer it, that a god exists. We don't have to convince you of anything, as you are the one who is believing in something you can't see.

No one will be convinced by another, I think. It is a matter of exploration and understanding. You say in your post that without religion there would be no theists. Do you believe this has always been the case, through history. Basically religion created theists, not the other way around?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why would any of those things prove the existence of a deity?

It provides very compelling evidence for the claim that their deity exists because humans lack the ability to spontaneously alter reality with thought.

 

[Nasor]

It provides very compelling evidence for the claim that their deity exists because humans lack the ability to spontaneously alter reality with thought.

Yeah, I've seen a number of these threads where a christian asks what it would take to convince an atheist. Usually some atheists provide some more-or-less reasonable things that would serve as convincing evidence. Strangely (as we see here) the christians often seem to act all confused about why the listed pieces of evidence would satisfy atheists, as if it was hard to understand why having prayers sent to a particular deity miraculously come true with statically significant frequency was evidence that the deity existed.I recall one thread by vitalone where he actually started arguing about whether or not the listed pieces of evidence would convince atheists, even though it was atheists who provided the list!

On a side note, a number of times now I've started threads where I asked christians what it would take to convince them that their god did not exist or that some other religion was correct. Usually I got a boatload of responses saying that nothing could ever possibly convince them that they were wrong. They often bluntly admit that they would simply ignore any and all evidence that their beliefs were wrong. I've actually seen people say that if followers of some other religion started doing things that christians couldn't do, like miraculously healing people, they would automatically assume that it was the work of the devil. And often when they do privde things that would convince them, the things that they list don't really make sense. I've seen things like "I would stop believing in god if humans could create life from scratch" or "if science could provide a way to make people live forever"...as if any of that was evidence for or against the existence of god.

It's hilarious that christians accuse atheists of being "closeminded," when in fact most atheists will happily list things that could change their mind, while most christians can't. Hey rjr6, what would it take to convince you that your religion was wrong?