Sorry, I disagree.
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
Sorry, I disagree.
HarryT
Registered Member
Yes and this is actually part of my point because at the moment each religion in the world has defined it’s own “toe” as God and is claiming it to be the only true “toe”. If those religions then start debating about this without understanding they each have a different “toe” as God then they will feel attacked in their beliefs when the other religion talks about their “toe” as being a different one from what they believe. All this resulting in extreme emotions and even violence as we have seen in history through the ages up until this day.
The mere fact that each religion has it’s own definition of God must and can only prove that all those definitions have been made up by humans. Or in other words: If there really was some extra- terrestrial super being with a magic wand and that being would have revealed itself to humans, all religions would have been identical.
But still, wondrous and beautiful thing have happened in history that have been attributed to “God” and many people in the world have found and will find comfort and strength believing in God. So the question can never be does God exist or not. The only questions is: What is(!) God.
Given all these facts, there can only be one conclusion: we humans are it ourselves.
In fact: any being in the galaxy at a similar or higher development level as we are also.
We say God is good. Yes: God is(!) good. To do good is to do God’s work. To do good is to be good is to be God. Isn’t it beautiful ?
Then of course there is the issue that I have not addressed yet: where did everything come from and what is the meaning of it all.
Well that is a matter of being brave enough to accept that everything was not created for a reason and there is no meaning behind it all. Or: that is a matter of being modest enough to accept that we humans are nothing special in the universe.
Yes, and that is fine. God will come to you when you are ready.
While I admire what you are trying to do, you unfortunately come up short, given what is ascribed to the God of these societies: earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, random fortuitous probability etc.
Man as a definition of God doesn't come close to being a possible candidate - and it is precisely because God is deemed above humans that it is worshipped
You mean except for the ones that aren't?
Your conclusion does not fit your argument. Had you concluded that nature exists, and therefore God exists, then your conclusion would follow your argument, but humans simply do not fit the bill of being capable of doing what God is supposed to do/have done.
An alternative, given your line of argument, would be to conclude that God is a mental construct created by Man, and since one person has that mental construct, God (as a mental construct) exists.
I suggest you be courageous and accept the fallacy of your current line of argument.
Again, I admire the intent, just the application of it seems flawed.
HarryT
Registered Member
This seems like a circular argument to me. With that I mean that you first define or assume God to be an extra-terrestial and all-powerful entity and then use that definition/assumption to prove that God is an extra-terrestial and all-powerful entity.
I think we all agree, or say to agree, that God is good. Does not that also mean that everything that is not good is not God? Or in other words: God never does anything not Good. As per definition?
Besides that: ascribing nature or anything in nature (like earthquakes) to God obviously comes from a human desire or instinct to make sense of things and an implicit belief that we are something incredibly special in the universe. I think science has made perfect sense of it all and has proven all of that to be not of the making of some entity and that we humans are very insignificant water blobs on an very insignificant rock circling an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy.
Yes, this is in essence what I am saying. Although it is more than only a mental construct. It is the good in ourselves: it is the good that we do.
That than at least perfectly explains everything that has happened in the past and is happening today.
I can truly say: To be able to make sense of it all gives me great comfort.
The scientific method was not designed to address a wide range of natural data, that is connected to consciousness and the mind. The method was designed to factor out any data which cannot be investigated via our sensory systems, for group verification.
For example, if I had a hallucination, and saw a pink elephant playing the piano, even though my brain is generating this unique data; in my mind's eye like a movie, there is no way for others to see it, in real time with their eyes, not can it be reproduced in the lab. Studies of such things are called soft science, because this type of data, although real, does not come under the terms set forth by the scientific method.
One person may see it, which is not denied, but beyond that, it can't be investigated by others with their sensory systems, for full detail verification. One has to depend on second person testimony, of a unique data event, without knowing for sure, if the data being reenacted is accurate, embellished or deceptive. The scientific method will not go there; becomes soft science. The data of the mind, will be the last frontier of hard science. Science is not yet equipped to do justice to this type of data like it can with chemicals and things.
We have all had dreams which allows us to know this type of data does exist. When the brain generates a dream, this data is a type of information data. Conceptually, it is not much different from when a plant generates chemical information. The difference is the chemical information is more tangible, and can be investigated with the sensory systems. The dream does not leave a tangible trace that is easy to investigate by others. Both are types of natural information, data, with one not subject to sensory verification, other than by the person who had the dream. But one person data falls short of the rules of the scientific method.
If someone had an experience of God, and this occurred through the brain and consciousness using pathways similar to dreams and hallucinations, this data will be real data, and will create a sense of conviction and even a memory trace; after image. But they will not be able to reproduce this data in the lab, under the terms of the scientific method, as currently designed.
Often such people will seek the company of others, who also had similar unique information data experiences, who can empathize. In Christianity, they speak of outer man dying and the inner man growing, with this inner man the new source of information data. The scientific method rendered onto God, that which was unique and rendered onto science that which was tangible and collective.
I am not saying the brain generates this data or whether the brain is an antenna, but movement ionic currents through certain pathways can result in unique data occurrences. These can be tailored to the person or to a group, since the personal and collective memory will be part of the data in such pathways.
For example, if I had a hallucination, and saw a pink elephant playing the piano, even though my brain is generating this unique data; in my mind's eye like a movie, there is no way for others to see it, in real time with their eyes, not can it be reproduced in the lab. Studies of such things are called soft science, because this type of data, although real, does not come under the terms set forth by the scientific method.
One person may see it, which is not denied, but beyond that, it can't be investigated by others with their sensory systems, for full detail verification. One has to depend on second person testimony, of a unique data event, without knowing for sure, if the data being reenacted is accurate, embellished or deceptive. The scientific method will not go there; becomes soft science. The data of the mind, will be the last frontier of hard science. Science is not yet equipped to do justice to this type of data like it can with chemicals and things.
We have all had dreams which allows us to know this type of data does exist. When the brain generates a dream, this data is a type of information data. Conceptually, it is not much different from when a plant generates chemical information. The difference is the chemical information is more tangible, and can be investigated with the sensory systems. The dream does not leave a tangible trace that is easy to investigate by others. Both are types of natural information, data, with one not subject to sensory verification, other than by the person who had the dream. But one person data falls short of the rules of the scientific method.
If someone had an experience of God, and this occurred through the brain and consciousness using pathways similar to dreams and hallucinations, this data will be real data, and will create a sense of conviction and even a memory trace; after image. But they will not be able to reproduce this data in the lab, under the terms of the scientific method, as currently designed.
Often such people will seek the company of others, who also had similar unique information data experiences, who can empathize. In Christianity, they speak of outer man dying and the inner man growing, with this inner man the new source of information data. The scientific method rendered onto God, that which was unique and rendered onto science that which was tangible and collective.
I am not saying the brain generates this data or whether the brain is an antenna, but movement ionic currents through certain pathways can result in unique data occurrences. These can be tailored to the person or to a group, since the personal and collective memory will be part of the data in such pathways.
Thanks for admitting God is an hallucination.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
When you ask, 'what is God', what are you seeking? A description of the essence of an existing being, or a definition of a word in our language?
Suppose that God exists and that humans can come into contact with God somehow, but humans have no idea what God is. Suppose that all humans can do is to refer to God ostensively, in effect by pointing to God and saying 'God is... that, whatever that is'.
This idea isn't uncommon in the monotheist religious traditions, which often insist that God's nature is ineffable, that it exceeds human concepts.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I'm not convinced that all of those six premises are entirely true. But let's accept them for the sake of argument.
Your premises just seem to suggest that human beings have a tendency to invent religions and deities for themselves. So how do we get from that idea (which many of us would agree is true) to the conclusion that human beings (or sentient beings in general) are collectively God?
Last edited:
If that is what is being done, then yes, it would be circular. But it's not.
I am merely stating that you have concluded Man to be God... yet Man falls woefully short of what God is often considered capable of.
Eh? I'm not sure as to which straw man you're arguing here? Care to explain?
That is supposition on your part. Just because it is what Man might desire does not negate the possibility.
I don't disagree with you, though, with regard the rational position, but you are trying to construct an argument of proof (given that you claimed to such) and such comments of yours as "obviously comes from..." would need to be proven as part of your proof.
Again, supposition. Science has merely explained things as far as its applicability allows. It can not provide any answer to what was before the Big Bang, for example. It can not prove what set the universe in motion, nor that what was set in motion was specifically designed / created / planned. It may not be a rational viewpoint but there is a significant gap between what is rational to accept and what is provable. You seem to be arguing for what is rational, not what can necessarily be proven.
Why? What makes that God? The gods of many cultures are vengeful. One only has to look at the recent events in Malaysia where backpackers who took topless photos on top of a sacred mountain were subsequently blamed by locals for an earthquake that killed 18 people.
If you feel you have made sense of it, good for you. You have yet to convince others that you have. Unfortunately you seem to cherry-pick those attributes and notions of God that suit your position. And you certainly haven't proven anything.
What you have done is push your arguments as to what you consider rational. But don't confuse that with proof.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If human beings are the ones who invented God, then all the positive qualities that God supposedly possesses must be qualities that we found within ourselves and gave him. So God's qualities would seem to be virtues that humans already possess to some limited degree, or can at least imagine.
I guess that's why God is often imagined in terms of the 'omni-' qualities, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and so on. Power, goodness and knowledge are all things that we value in ourselves, so God is imagined as having all of those qualities to their ultimate and perfect degree.
And that points to one of the reasons why we aren't, and can't be, God (even if we are the ones who invented God in our own image). While we might possess similar virtues, none of us possesses or displays our virtues in idealized, perfect form. Human beings are, by their nature, imperfect.
Last edited:
HarryT
Registered Member
Why not?! Our mind and consciousness exist, and anything that exists works under the laws of physics and so it is just a matter of time until their mechanisms can be understood.
Other than that I also believe that the origin of what most people seem to mean with God is from dreams or hallucinations, exactly like the alien abduction stories. If things like that happen to influential people with charisma they can convince lots of other people and a religion is born.
At least this is by far the most logical and simple explanation for the history of religions and would explain everything that has happened in the past and is happening today.
First, I want to put the finger on the silly-ness of people of different religions calling each other infidel because they are comparing apples and oranges. Second, I want the most simple possible explanation for the history of religions and everything that has happened in the past and is happening today in the world.
If such a God existed and humans could come into contact then they would all come into contact with the same God and there would have been only a single religion.
God or religion has been and still is for many people a strong positive factor in their lives. God, the belief in God, their religion helps them very much to cope with the things life throws at them. This is real, this is a fact. The only question remains is: how to explain this? What is this God, what could be so powerful that it provides comfort to so many people? For the reasons I have given before this God is not an out-of-this world entity and as Sherlock Holmes said: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Here you are assuming God to be a separate and perfect entity which we clearly are not. As I argued before: there simply is no such beast as a separate and perfect entity nor does there need to be to explain everything.
Substitute Zeus or Donald Duck or Satan for god & it works as well. Does that show they exist.
I call my big toe Satan.
< >
I call my big toe Satan.
< >
Says you, anyway.
I would have thought it more reasonable to consider the origin to be nature itself, and Man's pattern-seeking nature, followed by the anthropomorphisation of nature, rather than hallucination and/or dream.
If most religions worship what they see as the "one true God" - whether that be Allah or Jehovah or some other monotheistic deity, they are claiming their God to be the one and only. So they may be comparing apples with oranges, but when it comes to their favourite fruit, there is only one answer to them - and the fact that apples taste, look and feel different to oranges is irrelevant to that.
I find that rather naive, and suggest you watch "The Life of Brian".
The message from that film is that religions can spring up from different interpretation of what might be the same event, not necessarily from seeing different events. Thus, as said, you have merely concluded that God is a Man-made concept. This does not mean the conclusion is that God is Man, it means you should conclude that God is only a Man-made concept. But that concept is one of something far greater than Man, and Man might cling to it due to a need to feel that there is something bigger than itself, something to strive for, something with which to make sense of an otherwise (for them) an ultimately meaningless existence. Others (atheists) mostly seem to have no need for such.
And as I have explained: you are cherry-picking those attributes or notions of God that fit your desired conclusion.
If all you're looking to do is "explain everything" then there is no need to invoke God as anything other than a concept.
There is no "God exists as God is Man" required, there is simply "God is a concept that Man makes use of".
HarryT
Registered Member
I can understand your reasoning. I feel however there is sufficient scientific evidence that nature has no divine origin and there is no need for there to be a divine origin. This feels like wishful thinking to me.
I must say I like your post and can even say that besides the nature origin bit I agree with you.
"God is a concept that Man makes use of" is probably a more precise way of putting it than "God exists as God is Man", although both statements are virtually equivalent to me because someone has to do Gods work?
Anyway, I am going to rest my case by saying: Luckily most people are free to believe what they want.
I cannot believe what I want.
< >
< >
No, science can say nothing about the origin of the universe. It can speculate but nothing more.
Our rationality may mean we assume that it is not of divine origin, but science can say nothing about it. At best we can push the boundaries back of what we see as "the origin" - e.g. if Brane-theory somehow becomes scientific (i.e. testable) etc.
But you seem to confuse rationality with proof. They are distinct.
But that's the point - Man often sees "God's work" as being things outside of Man's control - such that Man can not be considered God (other than as part of a "God is everything" notion).
They are, and you are free to believe you have proven something when actually you haven't.
There are those that have questions and are not full, then there are those that are full and have no questions "unification"
And there are those who are full of it.
< >
< >