Proof there is a God

[Xelasnave.1947]

That only means that ANYTHING that we do not fully understand can be 'explained' by invoking the super natural. That is no explanation, IMO.

It always gets back to evidence, how unfortunate.
Still no proof.

We should pray for a sign that could work.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Hi BillyT
I was playing devils advocate I do not disagree with your well considered post.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

eQUOTE="Xelasnave.1947, post: 3370984, member: 283952"]I am surprised someone has not suggested the big bang evolution of the universe suggests a point of creation which is unexplainable without god.[/QUOTE]
That proposition would only be valid if there were no other options to explain the brginning of spaetime. But there are several other options being explored (without invoking a supernatural force), which are considerably more persuasive than the blanket assumption of "God did it".

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

eQUOTE="Xelasnave.1947, post: 3370984, member: 283952"]I am surprised someone has not suggested the big bang evolution of the universe suggests a point of creation which is unexplainable without god.

That proposition would only be valid if there were no other options to explain the brginning of spaetime. But there are several other options being explored (without invoking a supernatural force), which are considerably more persuasive than the blanket assumption of "God did it".[/QUOTE]

Prove that god didnt do it.

Sorry trying to be funny.

To be clear I am an atheist.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I often wonder how things go on another planet with inteligent life if they would have some form of religion.
Do intelligent beings evolve religion as a pre requirement to hold together civilisations.
Religion may have helped early man with life saving taboos.
A deep subject really.

 

[Write4U]

I often wonder how things go on another planet with inteligent life if they would have some form of religion.
Do intelligent beings evolve religion as a pre requirement to hold together civilisations.
Religion may have helped early man with life saving taboos.
A deep subject really.

Absolutely.
IMO, intelligent life similar us, but evolved in a different way, would have to have the ability for abstract thought and have imagination. It seems logical to me that the question of origins would be part of that thinking. If that would automatically lead to the assumption of a supernatural creator, I am not so sure. It seems to me that an orderly society can be formed through pure logic. It would depend on the environment, IMO.

Actually we already have such a society on earth, the Bonobo, which resolves conflict with sexual contact. Bonobos do get angry, but their body chemistry converts this anger into sexual excitement.

One researcher said the the Bonobo is the only great ape (including humans) who can go to sleep at night secure that they will wake up alive and well the next morning. Perhaps an important factor is that the Bonobo society is a matriarchy, unlike all other great apes. The eldest (wisest) females rule and there is no need for power competition.

 

[Billy T]

Hi BillyT
I was playing devils advocate I do not disagree with your well considered post. Alex

You can do that without making false statments, that consume the time and effort of others correcting them.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Write4U you said....

Actually we already have such a society on earth, the Bonobo, which resolves conflict with sexual contact. Bonobos do get angry, but their body chemistry converts this anger into sexual excitement.

Imagine if humans could reach such excellence

 

[Yazata]

I am surprised someone has not suggested the big bang evolution of the universe suggests a point of creation which is unexplainable without god.

The 'Kalam Cosmological Argument' thread addressed the 'big bang' at length.

 

[DaveC426913]

Write4U you said....
Actually we already have such a society on earth, the Bonobo, which resolves conflict with sexual contact. Bonobos do get angry, but their body chemistry converts this anger into sexual excitement.
Imagine if humans could reach such excellence

Xelasnave, please try to use the quote feature. I almost quoted you, thinking the above were your words.

Actually we already have such a society on earth, the Bonobo, which resolves conflict with sexual contact. Bonobos do get angry, but their body chemistry converts this anger into sexual excitement.

That's a pretty generous use of the term society. Intelligent as they are, bonobos are still animals, and their communication is limited to basic concepts. They can't conceive of - let alone fight over - concepts of a god and creation.

 

[Yazata]

I am surprised someone has not suggested the big bang evolution of the universe suggests a point of creation which is unexplainable without god.

Part I made bold is NOT true

Maybe, maybe not. But I think that you are missing Xelasnave's point. He seemed to me to be wondering why nobody on this 'proof there is a god' thread had raised that cosmological argument. It isn't necessary to launch a knee-jerk atheist attack just because somebody mentioned the possibility of arguing that way.

No, that is only one of several explanation of why the universe exist; and a rather poor one at that, as it violates Occam's suggestion

Can you justify the 'principle of parsimony'? Or is 'Ockham's razor' just a shibboleth that non-philosophical atheists like to toss around because it sounds authoritative?

Consider the question: how is it that birds are capable of flight? And consider two possible answers:

1. Because flight is part of the essence of what it is to be a bird.

2. Because of all kinds of complicated interrelationships between aerodynamic stuff involving air flow, air pressures on surfaces, Bernoulli's principle and the shape of bird wings?

Which of those two sorts of explanations is simpler and requires fewer assumptions? Just because a proposed explanation is simpler doesn't mean that it's always better. (Which raises the deeper questions of what explanations are, what they seek to accomplish and how good ones are distinguished from bad.)

(not to assume God's existence with no evidence) AND violates the laws of nature as non-material things can not direct move / change material things, not even an atom.

I don't know how the 'laws of nature' are even relevant to the ultimate origin question, since the origin of those laws is a major part of what needs to be explained.

Here is the scientifically accepted POV about the creation of the universe.

THE "scientifically accepted POV about the creation of the universe"?

It's just a speculation, and not a very good one at that.

“Steven Hawking's (and many others) idea is that a statistical fluctuation split zero energy into equal amounts of positive (from which mater evolved) AND negative energy (which is now accelerating the expansion of the universe). That has my respect as a likely cause, consistent with physic, (needing no magic miracle or super natural agents) of our universe's beginning - why it exists.

If we are talking about absolute non-existence, where do the "statistical fluctuations" in "zero energy" come from?

This story of Hawking's reminds me of the Presocratic Greek philosopher Anaximander. He imagined a formless primordial substance that he called 'apeiron' (Greek for 'unbounded'). The creation of the physical universe in his speculation consisted of the appearance of divisions and hence the beginnings of form in the formless apeiron. So hot was divided from cold and wet from dry. The subsequent evolution of the physical universe involved the interactions of these opposites.

Your ideas are more closely related to those believing any myth with no math* or evidence that their fathers believed, such as the flat earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. etc.”

How can mathematics bring us any closer to answering the origin-of-everything question? Mathematics is part of what needs to be explained, so trying to generate a 'bootstrap' explanation by use of mathematics would seem to be fatally circular by its nature.

“You start with zero energy and divide into two equal (in magnitude) parts. One positive and associated quote with normal matter and the other negative and associated with "dark energy." In some of his simplified talks for people like me, Hawking uses the analogy of seeing a huge pile of dirt (and not noting the hole it came from). I. e. the total energy of the universe is still zero as it was in the beginning. Conservation of energy is alive and well, thank you.”

Hawking isn't a dim bulb, so he must see the problems in that. What is being divided? Why does it become divided? Why was it divided in that way and not in some other? Just imagining that the positive and negative values of everything in the universe somehow add up to zero (which sounds like nothing but a speculation) might be a grand illustration of the conservation of energy, but it is not an answer to the 'Why is there something rather than nothing' question.

I don't believe that physics is even capable of answering that most fundamental of questions, since physics is part of what needs explaining.

That doesn't suggest that religion's 'explanations' are any better. They aren't.

In my opinion nobody possesses the answer. What's more, nobody even knows whether the question is being framed in the right way, let alone how to go about answering it.

Agnosticism is probably the best position to take on metaphysical questions such as this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They do? I don't think that you have any way of really knowing that.

Can you think of anyone, or any civilisation that doesn't have a notion of God, or an authority which has at least the basic attributes of God. They may worship gods, spirits, and ancestors, but there is a notion of an overarching authority whom can be called God by some definition.

You have faith that "God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found in the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself".

Why would I need to invoke faith?
The information it there. Do you know what faith is?

Those are your words, an expression of your own faith. You obviously got the idea from somewhere, from some teaching or teacher who imagines the Indian mythological figure Krishna as a deity. That much is obvious.

It's not an idea. It's information. You can look it up and draw the same conclusion without believing, or accepting that it is true. ''Krishna'' means something. Not that people just decide to call him Krishna.
''Krishna'' goes way beyond Indian mythology, before India was named India. Again this is not my idea, and I have no need to exp

Because belief in the divinity of Krishna and in the monotheistic unity of all religion appears to me to be your faith Jan. It's implicit in virtually everything you write.

This is your own thinking. You don't seem to regard scripture as knowledgeable sources of information, so anyone who does regard them, and use them in discussion to make points, must be some religious person who only get their ideas from them.

Are you embarrassed about your own beliefs?

I've told you time and time again that I believe in God.
What more do you need to know?

You needn't be, they are no more embarrassing than Christianity or Islam. Do you fear that committing yourself to something specific will make you vulnerable and give your opponents additional ways to attack you?

Since 2001 I have been saying I believe in God. I have used the Bible, Quran, Torah, hebrew lexicons, Bhagavad Gita, Shrimad Bhagavatam, quotes of the Buddha, William Craig Lane, Intelligent Design, and a whole host of other sources of information. What do you think I could be embarrassed about?

You need to learn to accept people for what they are, rather than trying to put them in to little boxes with genre tags on them.

I'm beginning to to think you are unable to discuss religion and spirituality on this level, or maybe you are afraid that you will be forced to accept something about it.

Would you rather be attacking atheists' ideas, while keeping your own beliefs and faith commitments deeply in the shadows?

It may seem like I'm attacking them, because they are vague when it comes to real talk about God. They seem to flourish better when talking to people who base their belief purely on faith, or those who are fooled into thinking the atheist has a good fund of knowledge on the subject, and tries to keep in favour with the atheists.
Most atheists do not have an idea of who and what God is supposed to be, and when cornered they turn the attention on the theist, or religion, and end up driving the discussion into the ground, by repeating the same old cliches.

Because you are preaching a particular theological doctrine on this board: the innateness of religious knowledge, some kind of universalist monotheism and the idea that all religious scriptures from all cultures teach your brand of monotheism when they are rightly understood.

What ''particular theological doctrine are you referring to? I've already told you that I use many scriptures, and sources to get my points across.

You have this darwinian evolutionary notion that monotheism evolved out of previous ideologies.
I don't.

You have argued in other threads that the fact that people can't name specific human authors for many religious texts means that those texts are particularly authoritative and suggested that they have a supernatural origin.

Have I really? I'd like to see that.
The chance are that you have misunderstood my point due to your preconception.

How do you imagine that people know about God? By hearing other people around them using the word in a whole variety of different ways? Or from some innate knowledge, that you believe is imprinted in their deepest self/soul?

I would go more for the ''innate knowledge...'' angle.

I'm not convinced that he ever existed. But whoever composed the Gita (I'd guess that it went through many hands before it was fixed in written form and inserted into the Mahabharata epic) were almost certainly ordinary human beings. Presumably the Brahmins who passed down such traditional lore.

Why do you think were they ''almost certainly ordinary human beings''?

What's your own belief about who or what Vyasa was?

I don't need a belief on that.
If you want more info just google him, then you'll have the information I have.

Sanatana dharma is what many Hindus in India call their religion. They don't like the name 'Hindu' because it has a Persian origin. So here's another traditional item of belief that you are preaching to us without acknowledging its origin: The idea that Indian tradition is eternal and primordial, and hence prior to all of the world's other religions which are basically corruptions of it.

Is this how you're going to play this Yazata?
Are we going to get passed this obsession with whatever it is you seemed obsessed about?

Here's what you wrote earlier:

"I quote the Gita because in it I find a complete description of God, whereas in the other scriptures I find partial description.
The Gita is not for any religious tradition, I find that it is the essential source of all religious tradition. I find that my comprehension of books like the Bible, or the Koran, is a lot clearer because I have a better idea of who and what God is."

So what?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I never said that there is no evidence for God. I'm saying that defining the word 'God' is an impossible task in much of Christian theology, in the Eastern Orthodox traditions particularly. So what you demand that atheists do is something that many Christians believe can't be done.

I'll add that many Muslims and Hindus would agree.

God is defined, as far as we can comprehend, in the scripture. I don't know what else you mean by defined, but to me, to define God is to give an explanation of His nature. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Eternally Blissful etc, allow me to comprehend who and what He is. You don't need to have faith, or believe in God, to know that information.

Muslims regard Allah in the same way. The name ''Vishnu'' means All Pervading, this is another definition of God. So I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

I'm not convinced that "scriptures" contain information about God. They do contain information about what their ancient writers and compilers believed (and wanted others to believe) about religious matters, matters that may or may not involve a monotheist 'God'.

Well I'm convinced they do contain information about God, regardless of whether the information is true or false. That's what you have to find out.

You seem awfully eager to make atheists' personal subjective lives the subject of discussion.

I'm not interested in yours or atheists personal life.
Where have I made your personal life a subject of discussion?

And if you are unwilling to acknowledge the tradition that seemingly spawned so much of your belief, and if you insist instead that you arrived at it independently all by yourself, then your personal subjective life would seem to be central to the whole thing.

Why put words into my mouth?
I believe in God. I've said that loads. I call myself a theist (dead give away).
I have said I'm not into state religion.
I give a lot of sources. I never advocate any particular tradition.
I can think of loads of reasons why you are barking up the wrong tree, but I'm
hoping you can just move on, as there are lots we could discuss.

Because ideas about 'God', and the 'scriptures' in which those ideas are found, are the historical products of religious traditions. It's impossible to talk intelligently about particular concepts of 'God' or 'scripture' without acknowledging the traditions from which those ideas come.

I disagree. The religions are based on the religious principle which are found in scripture.
If you want to know about God, and the basis of all religions (including buddhism), you will find it in the scriptures.

Or at least the theology that you embrace insists that those things represent a common denominator.

What theology do I embrace Yazata?

What did you say about simplifying everything? Here you are trying to stuff all "proper religions" into a single theistic box while distinguishing them from religions that you consider improper. (Presumably the polytheistic and non-theistic ones and all those that don't emphasize "self realization and God realization".)

Can't you see the link between religions?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Much better! Now we can look at the *Wholeness* of the universe (and its properties) in an objective manner.

We can begin by discarding the notion that humans are in the Image of the Wholeness. Humans are but a miniscule part of the Wholeness, no more special to the Wholeness as an ant, or any other unrelated life forms which MOST probably exist elsewhere in the universe. (see Robert Hazen).

But does that work for you?

So what is this ''Wholeness'' (upper case), if not God?

Yeah it works for me.
I can see it's going to amount to the same thing.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

What theology do you embrace?

You tell us, you're the one arguing that God exists, because, and that we should look at unspecified "scriptures" for The Truth.

 

[Billy T]

... Can you justify the 'principle of parsimony'? ...

It is just a guide. If two different theories both make "same assumption A" but one makes half-dozen more than that one alone, then the probability that the one making the greater number of assumptions is correct, can never be greater than the theory making only one which both theories assume and in most cases the "assumption rich" theory is less probable of being correct - do you not agree?

This of course follows only if neither theory violates logic as it constructs consequences from its assumptions.

... is 'Ockham's razor' just a shibboleth that non-philosophical atheists like to toss around because it sounds authoritative?

Certainly not: Ockham was far from an atheist: William of Ockham was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. Born in 1285. His suggestion / guidance has met the "test of time."

 

[Write4U]

So what is this ''Wholeness'' (upper case), if not God?
Yeah it works for me.
I can see it's going to amount to the same thing. jan.

OK! We are communicating. Let's have a look at the properties of the Wholeness.
Is the Wholeness an implacable dynamical condition, or is It a motivated sentient being?
IOW, does the Wholeness have specific desires and intentions (as suggested in scripture)?

 

[Write4U]

I disagree. The religions are based on the religious principle which are found in scripture.
If you want to know about God, and the basis of all religions (including buddhism), you will find it in the scriptures.

Unfortunately none of the various scriptures agree on even the most fundamental levels.

Can't you see the link between religions? Jan.

As TimB already explained, when there are various *interpretations* of a concept, Ockham's razor applies. So which scripture is the one which *proves* the existence of God (by any other name)?

Your have cited that fundamentally all theistic concepts talk about the same God, but you do not adhere to any scripture specifically, which to me sounds that you have cobbled together your own notion of God, because none of those concepts completely satisfies your ability for objective thought and you end up with a subjective acceptance of a God, but as a concept which does NOT completely agree with any particular other theistic concept.

In effect this amounts to rejection of all religions because you cannot find truth in any of the separate religions, and are thus left with a single common denominator which you call God (by any other name), but no possible way of explaining your subjective emotional conclusion.

But in your long list of scripture you have failed to include the concept of an implacable condition which essentially functions through a purely logical mathematical process. And by Ockham's razor that would be the least complicated concept and is the only functional concept which is abundantly observable and verifiable from the very subtle to the gross expression in (our) reality.

the 17th-century scientist Galileo Galilei once declared:
The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written.
It is written in mathematical language and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word

http://www.newstatesman.com/education/2010/10/problem-science-mathematics

So, if we were to add Mathematical Wholeness to the long list of possible causal hypotheses, the MW is at the top of the list and all other expressed non-mathematical concepts (religions) are less logical and therefore unknowable or at least unexplainable.

 

[Write4U]

We should pray for a sign that could work.

Oh, there are plenty of signs of a causal universal function that demonstrably works. Mathematics.
For just one example, consider the Fibonacci Sequence , which can be found in the mundane daisies which grow in our yards, and in sun-flowers and pine-cones and, on a somewhat grander scale, in spiral galaxies.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U you said....

Actually we already have such a society on earth, the Bonobo, which resolves conflict with sexual contact. Bonobos do get angry, but their body chemistry converts this anger into sexual excitement.

Imagine if humans could reach such excellence

"Imagine" (John Lennon)

and for good measure , do watch this: