Proof there is a God

[Bowser]

If we are given free will from the onset. how can we question the responsibilities of a deity? War and death are often the product of human endeavors, not ordained by a higher authority.

 

[Yazata]

Another proof that God very probably doesn't exist in that atheists are much smarter than theists.

I'm sure that it's true that some atheists are smarter than some theists, but the reverse is true too. Some theists are clearly smarter than some atheists.

My own experience is that the more militant sort of self-styled atheist often lacks philosophical sophistication and is typically weak in their knowledge of religion. They often strike me as religious fundamentalists with the religion removed. So generally speaking, I'm not impressed by self-styled 'atheists'.

My experience has been that self-styled 'agnostics' are typically more thoughtful, emotionally mature and knowledgeable about the issues. That's why I call myself an 'agnostic', despite my believing that Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu and Shiva most likely don't exist as anything more than mythological characters.

If God really existed that theists would be much smarter than atheists but in fact the very opposite is true.

I don't agree with either part of that. Why would God's existence have anything to do with people' intelligence? And you are still assuming atheist superiority which is almost certainly false.

Up above you called this a "proof that God very probably doesn't exist". Can you lay out the steps of that proof?

Also another proof of God's nonexistence is the argument from nonbelief: If God was really all-powerful then he would convince everyone that he is real but the fact is that many people are just not convinced that God exists, therefore God does not exist or is not all-powerful.

Or maybe a personal theistic God exists but just doesn't care what people here on Earth believe. Or maybe God is an impersonal ultimate principle like Neoplatonism's ineffable 'One'.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

We cant prove nonexistence of things generally and certainly we can not prove the nonexistence of god.

However if we claim the existence of something is it unreasonable to expect that proof be presented. Where something exists presenting proof is not impossible.

Given humans long association with god and gods does not the asbsence of proof to date cause concern for a human of any level of inteligence asking for evidence.

Well even in this thread proof or even reasonable evidence in support of the prescence of god is absent.

How can humans develop such a clear definition of god, explain in detail the deeds of such god, and outline the expectations of such a god.

Of course, refer to the religious texts available, all authored by humans, all published by humans and all referenced by humans as evidence of their god. They believe but can not prove that their god influenced the author.
So as pointed out earlier it is a matter of faith not proof that is offerred.

Alarmingly many believers are inteligent and rely upon faith, leaving it seems, their inteligence in neutral when asking or not asking, is faith helping depiction of reality.

Oh and all the deaths, the millions of inoccent folk not saved al explained away by free will.
Get real all ye of faith. If you have free will it is most doubtful that it is god given.

This nonsence free will, how convenient, that god provides itself with such a devine cop out, such that having created the universe and some human pets this god can leave and let these pets run wild and destroy each other if they, through their free will, decide to do so...

Worse than leaving young kids in the house whilst the parents go for a holiday. Yet free will leaves consequences much worse and on a global scale. Dont excuse gods lack of involvement as "we are given free will" so it is our fault not the fault of god.

Its really not a god cop out but the cop out offerred by humans who in faith believe that a god would proceed thinking such a cop out is a great idea.

Explain that idea to all the dead folk, to all the inoccent victims.... Yes explain this free will to them.. Better still explain it to their loved ones who still have not received credible answers as to why their deaths and suffering could not be stopped by a god who created the universe for the free willed human pets.

Believe what you want you do after all have free will.

 

[Bowser]

Explain that idea to all the dead folk, to all the inoccent victims.... Yes explain this free will to them.. Better still explain it to their loved ones who still have not received credible answers as to why their deaths and suffering could not be stopped by a god who created the universe for the free willed human pets.

Maybe it's up to the free will humans to make the difference. Could it be we should be doing the work, not a deity?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Maybe it's up to the free will humans to make the difference. Could it be we should be doing the work, not a deity?

The deal is humans have free will and the expectation is they do the work.

I simply observe this to be rather convenient for a god or gods (free will presents in many of the major religions) who do not care to adjust the rules to minimise un necessary suffering and death.

So the trade off is this.
We get free will and can decide to do good or bad with no regard to the sufferring this approach delivers to inoccent victims. So you can have free will to kill but the victim has no free will not to be killed.


Obviously religions support the trade off because it means human suffering is their (humans) fault. Not gods. Dont blame him its all up to you guys.

Still the victims suffer and die and thats good because that is the price of freedom paid by humans to god.

Humans pay for god's permanent holiday.

The idea is god gave us freedom but releaves his intervention to prevent suffering.
The idea has been cooked up for centuries to explain why god is not looking after his pets.

Here is an idea.
Let us have free will but build into the design of the human an overide making us incapable of hurting other humans or animals.

Or just something better. Not too difficult for a god one would think. So why not. Well the why not league have been churning out philosophy text on this for centuries and it seems so nice and wonderful they have worked out the way god approached this matter and happily left a situation where world war can kill millions and when priests and religious leaders are asked why did god not help out these con artists run out the free will trip.

I ask simply could not a god do better such that so many pets (humans) do not suffer.

Well if there was a god who gave a hoot it would be better but there is no god and if there is he certainly does not give a hoot.

This is undeniable.

If a farmer let his herd suffer he would face criminal prosecution and a farmer who left the farm and simply goes on holiday does not exist. Funny about that.

Still no proof of god but there certainly is some problems with the god model.

So if you want to become a serial killer go right ahead you have gods permission and to the victims we can only say... God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Why? They are two arguments suggesting God does not exist, but that can never be proved to be the case. Outside the realm of mathematics, proof of non-existance is imposible. All you can do is suggest reasons why that might be the case. Pluto2 suggested two.

...

Another proof that God very probably doesn't exist in that atheists are much smarter than theists. If God really existed that theists would be much smarter than atheists but in fact the very opposite is true.

Really!
Secondly, what does smartness have to do with whether God exists, or not?
This is simply an attack on theist, nothing to do with proof.

To me the more powerful suggestion that at least if he does exist, he/she is not all knowing and kind is what is happening for 5 years now in Syria and earlier in Germany under Hitler (and many worse times through out history). If there is a “loving God,” concerned with mankind, he sure has a strange idea / definition for / about love. I could more easily believe a hateful, powerful Devil existed.

How do you think a ''loving god'' should act, in those, and other scenarios? And why?

Without even appearing to interfer with the natural laws, Hitler and Assad could have died of a heart attack (early in their youth if God is "all poweful and all knowing.")

But what about their desires?
If someone wants peace to reign, then it stands to reason that someone wants war to reign.
Why do you think one should be granted, and the other not?

Or to put the question on a scale of one life, rather than millions, what did this young boy do to deserve death by drowning?

He may have drowned children in his former life, and as such, is bound by the laws of karma to be drowned in a specific way.

jan.

 

[Write4U]

...Really!
Secondly, what does smartness have to do with whether God exists, or not?
This is simply an attack on theist, nothing to do with proof.

I agree, but you must admit that belief in God (as normally defined) is a naive outlook on how the universe functions.

How do you think a ''loving god'' should act, in those, and other scenarios? And why?

A *loving* God would protect His children. But of course God (in its widest interpretation) has no emotional stake in the universe and its workings.

But what about their desires? If someone wants peace to reign, then it stands to reason that someone wants war to reign. Why do you think one should be granted, and the other not?

God does not grant (other than as a permittive condition) or decide anything. The laws of nature do.

He may have drowned children in his former life, and as such, is bound by the laws of karma to be drowned in a specific way. jan.

That last sentence really is disturbing. God did not drown that child for crimes he did not commit? That would make God a vengeful murderer. OTOH, the ocean has no such motives.

Then the assertion that God is *bound* by the laws of Karma is contrary to the concept of an omnipotent sentient being.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Is there any religion that embraces the law of karma?

Make stuff up, make excuses, fall back to superstition and fail to grasp the possibility that if there is a god he has failed to protect the inoccent (that drowned kid is only one of the un necessary deaths of the millions upon millions of deaths one has to select from) and still no proof of a god or even flimsy evidence that god exists.

We can arrived at either of two conclusions.

Firstly there is a god who works in mysterious ways with no compassion for inoccent victims protecting the free will of killers to choose good or bad.

Or

Secondly we can conclude the absence of action and the absence of any devine intervention points to the undeniable observation that there must be no god and religions sprout from the delusions of folk who really want one to be there to look after the inoccent humans. Wanting does not make it so.. Sorry it just does not.

It could be argued that to follow superstition and make believe automatically robs an individual of any claim that they are inteligent at all. You know you can not steal and not be called a thief but one theft means you are now a theif and it matters not that you had a good record.. One action makes you a theif. Any claim to inteligence is washed away when you practice superstition and make believe. Any inteligent person will understand and agree wouldnt they?

And while we listern to the many and varied excuses as to why the world does not work as we should expect if god was at the helm we still are offerred no proof or even mildly exceptable evidence of god.

Or more bluntly.. There is no proof of god.

The promise offerred by this thread has not and will not be delivered.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I appologise to those I have offended.
I probably reacted poorly and un necessarily drew out the point I try to make.
I dont think I made it at all.
My frustration is not with god its the way humans interprete him. would it not be valid to argue that to attempt to link our being to the creator of the Universe as being a little hopeful.
I am driven to be decent so no problem with running a decent moral code.
I find taking personal responsibility for actions the key to most things, mmm free will wow.
Proof.

 

[Write4U]

I appologise to those I have offended.
I probably reacted poorly and un necessarily drew out the point I try to make.
I dont think I made it at all.
My frustration is not with god its the way humans interprete him. would it not be valid to argue that to attempt to link our being to the creator of the Universe as being a little hopeful.
I am driven to be decent so no problem with running a decent moral code.
I find taking personal responsibility for actions the key to most things, mmm free will wow.
Proof.

There is good stuff in many religions. The problem is that they all claim *exclusive truth* and therefore are inherently prejudicial and hostile to *freethinkers*.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yes I really do agree.
I think they drive so many good things we would be lost without them.
I would not get rid of any unless something much better came along.
And I speculate that religion probably enabled civilization.
I dont know but lets call that a fact.

 

[Write4U]

Yes I really do agree.
I think they drive so many good things we would be lost without them.
I would not get rid of any unless something much better came along.
And I speculate that religion probably enabled civilization.
I dont know but lets call that a fact.

Let's not call this a fact. After some 3000 years, I see no civilized behavior from most religious people.
Just yesterday 13 some people were killed in Belgium, IN THE NAME OF GOD AND RELIGION.

The notion that humanity NEEDS a God to create a civilized society is just plain wrong. I said many scriptures contain words of wisdom here and there, but these moral instructions are in fact *secular* moral messages and would exist even without religious scripture. They're called *secular laws* of things you cannot do, but you are free to think what you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of others. This is NOT taught in scripture, because scripture demands strict and exclusive adherence to the *holy words in the Holy Book* and any deviation is punishable with DEATH (or eternal suffering).

 

[gmilam]

Yes I really do agree.
I think they drive so many good things we would be lost without them.
I would not get rid of any unless something much better came along.
And I speculate that religion probably enabled civilization.
I dont know but lets call that a fact.

Since religion is a product of humans, then humans obviously don't need a god in order to do good (or evil). We have the capability for both within us.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I thought a fact was something you made up but know to be correct.

I was trying to be fair minded.

Unfortunately more sadness flows from the fountain of peace.

I would think if there was a god he would cancel a few franchices who damage the brand name.

Personally I would stop calling the offenders terrorists, which elevates their status dressing them in more fearsome manner and linking their action to a cause for they are murdering criminals. Deflate their link to a cause and appeal to righteous cause. Criminally insane is the most they deserve.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I agree, but you must admit that belief in God (as normally defined) is a naive outlook on how the universe functions.

Define belief in God.

Personally I don't agree that the two conflict unless one defines God as a material being. That being said, I agree.

A *loving* God would protect His children. But of course God (in its widest interpretation) has no emotional stake in the universe and its workings.

Do you mean the moral body or the immoral soul of his children?

God does not grant (other than as a permittive condition) or decide anything. The laws of nature do.

So the laws of nature is God?

That last sentence really is disturbing. God did not drown that child for crimes he did not commit? That would make God a vengeful murderer. OTOH, the ocean has no such motives.

Then the assertion that God is *bound* by the laws of Karma is contrary to the concept of an omnipotent sentient being.

If God exists what would be the purpose of drowning the equivalent of a suit of clothes?
Or, what would be the point of you killing one of your characters in a computer game (avatar)?

How could God, if he exists, be bound by a law of nature? Or how did you think it was implied?

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

Define belief in God.

An imaginary abstraction which cannot be defined.

Personally I don't agree that the two conflict unless one defines God as a material being. That being said, I agree.

Write4U said: ↑
A *loving* God would protect His children. But of course God (in its widest interpretation) has no emotional stake in the universe and its workings.

Do you mean the moral body or the immoral soul of his children?

Define morality and why children posssess immoral souls? I find that kind of talk very dangerous and may well lead to child-abuse in the name of righteousness.

Write4U said: ↑
God does not grant (other than as a permittive condition) or decide anything. The laws of nature do.

So the laws of nature is God?

No, the laws of nature are the laws of physical reality. God (as commonly defined) does not exist.

Write4U said: ↑
That last sentence really is disturbing. God did not drown that child for crimes he did not commit? That would make God a vengeful murderer. OTOH, the ocean has no such motives.

If God exists what would be the purpose of drowning the equivalent of a suit of clothes?

First of all littering the beaches with dead bodies of children is not a game that interests me. Second, you can buy a new suit of clothes.

Or, what would be the point of you killing one of your characters in a computer game (avatar)?

Because they don't really die. They just hit the reset button.

Then the assertion that God is *bound* by the laws of Karma is contrary to the concept of an omnipotent sentient being.

How could God, if he exists, be bound by a law of nature? Or how did you think it was implied? Jan.

If a god existed the laws of nature would be HIS laws The implication that he could or would change his own laws would imply that God is very fickle and unreliable as a Universal manager.

Of course all these questions are solved by the conclusion that God des not exist in reality, but is a figment of our imagination. And I used the term "naive" precisely for that reason.. God and religions are just mental games we play with each other, except when you die in a holy war game there is no reset button.

Oh, I forgot, God supposedly has a reset button, all we need to do is wait for the resurrection of a dead man. But to my knowledge this resurrecton has not yet occurred, even after 2000+ years. Is God a bad computer game player who can't find the reset button?

 

[newnature]

Christianity developed the notion of original sin.

So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.

Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.

Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.

 

[Write4U]

Christianity developed the notion of original sin.

Precisely, and killed thousands of innocent people in order to convince them of their *original sin*. People with guilt complexes are easy to manipulate.

So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.

Yes, yet they are pro-life so that we will have more little sinners.

Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principle inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.

Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.

Of course a star had to die violently so that humans could evolve. It is true that the universe does not know good from evil, but universal history is certainly filled with the most violent events imaginable. Even on this little hospitable planet, 90 % of all species that ever existed are now extinct. As Carlin said; "we didn't kill them all".

At best God (Yahweh) is implaccable in its functions. The only laws that shape the functions of the universe are Natural Mathematical Laws, Evolution, and Natural Selection. For something to live, something else has to die.

btw. The allegory of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not in disobedience of any Sacred Command. Why would yahweh create this tree in the first place? To tempt man into sin? That sounds more like something the Devil (the Tempter) would do.

The truth is that the appearance of homo sapiens was just a leap of evolution, possibly caused by a single mutated chromosome in a common ancestor.. There are several intelligent species on earth who do not eat apples, though it is a favorite fruit in all hominids. Are all hominids evil because they eat apples? Is it ok now to eat apples or is it still forbidden?
btw. Many species have extremely advanced moral mirror function. Whales adopting an injured dolphin. A 300 lb Goorilla protecting a child who had fallen into the gorilla compound.
An Orangutan assisting a drowning duckling back to land. (using a leaf to give the duckling some grip). Almost all animals *experience* the feeling of empathy which triggers a gentle response (except perhaps for the Black Widow spider : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zfgFfC5kOs&list=PL20167D4F8FFB717E

But I do agree that the human ability for high order abstract thought is a double edged sword and I certainly agree that humanist morals are necessary for a relatively peaceful co-existence.

Even as Scripture has some useful moral allegories, I doubt though that Scripture has helped much in making humans a wiser species. But that's why we have installed secular laws which apply equally to all humans, to keep our darker desires in check.

p.s. One of the Laws of Nature is *movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction*, also known as the *path of least resistance*. Do you see the implied connection to the (secular) *7 deadly sins*, descibed appropriately in scripture, and the wisdom to use moderation in all things., which I believe is a Deist spiritual world view.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Define morality and why children posssess immoral souls? I find that kind of talk very dangerous and may well lead to child-abuse in the name of righteousness.

Before I respond to the whole response, let me clear up an error I made.
I didn't mean "moral", I meant"mortal".
My bad.

Jan.

 

[newnature]

So we come to the fifth 'a day' and we see whatever kind of life being killed off over and over again. Then we come to the cave man, that is what was before Adam and Eve. But God did not create cave people in his image. Being created in the image of God means that we must view ourselves as intrinsically valuable and richly invested with meaning, potentially and responsibilities. We are to be and to do on a finite scale, what God is and does on an infinite scale.

By virtue of being created in the image of God, human beings are capable of reflecting his character in their own life; animals possess none of these qualities. What distinguishes people from animals is the fact that human nature inherently has godlike possibilities.

Omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence, none of these other divine attributes have been ascribed to the human race as part of the image of God. We have been created to reflect God in our thinking and actions, but the physical sustained by God and dependent upon him for our existence in this world and in the world to come. Developing a godly character in this present life, this will be our personal identity in the world to come. It is the character or personality that we have developed in this life, that God preserves in his memory.

So these cave people, they would have to have everything we have to populate the earth ,

These cave people would not have had a God conscious, like God has given to the human race a God consciousness, the conscious perception that we could say that there is a God somewhere and that ultimately the human race is accountable to that God.