Proof there is a God

[exchemist]

Their view is needed, though. Such counterpoints are what kick-starts the debate, to at least get people talking, to start questioning what we otherwise take for granted. Otherwise there is the risk that only one side is ever heard, and that any legitimate concern that one may have of that side is simply drowned out.
At least with such people being the vocal front there is more information being disseminated and discussed with which people can then make up their own minds.

I suppose so, but the problem, as so often in history, is that it is the extremists who have the clear and simple message, while more thoughtful and nuanced positions are doomed to sound wishy-washy and indecisive by comparison. It is easy for people to be bamboozled by simplicity, especially in an age of sound bites and social media.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I gather you believe the scriptures, all of them, are writtings of substance and from those and with God in your heart that you are right.

What I believe is no more significant than the colour of my eyes, with regards what is truth. Do you agree?

I do not see the scriptures as offerring any proof of God they are what they are attempts by men to define something they wish could be reality. If you wish to claim they are of substance that is up to you.

I agree that claiming something to have substance does not mean it does.

The scriptures aren't meant to offer proof of God, maybe that's where the misunderstanding begins with you.

You are a master of arguement but you miss the point. It is not about winning it is about proof. You offer no proof of anything other than that you argue well and avoid addressing the OP.

Thank you for the compliment, but you are definitely mistaken.

There are ultimately two ways to look at this:

God exists or God doesn't exist.

Something kick started everything (even if it simply popped into existence), or everything has always been.

Whatever kick started everything is technically God, as that is one of His/Its characteristics. If something has always been, then it is God (as that is another of His/Its characteristics.

How did we get to know, or think we know, the characteristics of God:

Either we get it from God, the kick starter, or it is a natural make up of the material process that brings forth minds and consciousness. It can't be wrong, and therefore theists aren't wrong. An atheist being a person who lacks belief in God, also isn't wrong, in that it is also right to lack belief. But that cannot mean that there is no God, only that they lack a belief in God.

I said earlier I am very happy I did not offend you and you chose to throw that in my face. You mock my grace in avoiding conflict and you chose to be confrontational which suggests to me you miss the message of all the scriptures.

Why would you be happy that you didn't offend me?
Did you try not to offend me, and then felt happy to have learned that you were successful in your pursuit?

I politely offer you an appology and you want to continue to belittle me and my views so what am I to do. Well I turn the other cheek and yet you see that as opportunity to strike again and again clearly you wont be content until I lose conscienceness. Poor behaviour on your part in my view.

It's as if you are oblivious to the subtleties of your own negative characteristic, and how they can be perceived.

We could have got passed this ages ago, if you had decided to engage my questions and points.

I do not want to argue with you. Your need to argue suggests it would be unkind of me to confront you with a reality you are unable to entertain.

Why would I be unable d to entertain it?
Is it because I'm deficient in some way?

But you go on and on no doubt confirming to others that it is indeed you that offers no substance and avoid addressing the OP and that you are intent on using this thread to indulge your desire to have "a warm and fuzzy" chat about your superior understanding of God.

I'm not avoiding the op. I'm sure you can appreciate that it is difficult to offer proof of God, by throwing up a few statements, and saying viola. Firstly, because we can't see God, and anything we can see, here, touch, taste, smell, must have a natural rational explanation (even if we don't know what it is). But does this mean that God doesn't exist?
No. So if God exists, what could He/It be? That is the first question we must ask before begin trying to find proof of God. Wouldn't you agree?

Can you address the OP? That is the only question to be answered.

Yes I can address the op, but you must respect the subject matter at hand if you wish to progress.
Two questions:
Do you believe it is impossible for God to exist?
If you believe it is can you explain why?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To believe in the good that a God can bring to onesself, without the requirement that it must exist (and thus must exist for all) is quite an enlightened view.

Firstly, in my last post to you I made a mistake. I wrote:

''My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. My profile is that I am a theist, a person who believes in God. Not someone who claims that God objectively exists. So I am open to the idea that God may actually exist.''

I should have written: So I am open to the idea that God may not actually exist.
I am open to this, but it will take some serious explanation, because you just eliminate God out of the picture, by passing it off as some fantasy idea. You have to explain why, when, where, and who. If you can do that, then you could be on to something.

To believe in the good that a God can bring to onesself, without the requirement that it must exist (and thus must exist for all) is quite an enlightened view.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I have struggled with a similar issue, but from the other side, as an atheist. I see a lot of good that is emergent from a belief in God. It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept.

You sir, have impressed me.

When you say ''It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept'', what do you see in your mind when think of God in this context?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I should have written: So I am open to the idea that God may not actually exist.

Dont kid yourself, Jan. On this matter you're as open as Fort Knox is to being broken into by a five year old. In past discussion you have simply refused to accept the possibility, claiming that it is not possible to imagine God not existing, on the basis that God (as defined) is the cause of all, and thus if you remove God you remove everything that God caused. Hence you could not imagine us existing if God did not exist. Doesn't sound particularly open to the idea of God not existing, does it.
So once again it appears your inconsistency is your only constant.

I am open to this, but it will take some serious explanation, because you just eliminate God out of the picture, by passing it off as some fantasy idea. You have to explain why, when, where, and who. If you can do that, then you could be on to something.

Again you kid yourself.
You have previously argued, iirc, that it is possible to directly experience God. How would such be possible if there is a remote possibility (such that you are open to the possibility) that God does not exist? Are you claiming that you might be wrong about what it is that you think can be directly experienced?
No, Jan, you are not open to this possibility at all. You can not even comprehend it as a possibility, which is why you have such a difficult time understanding atheists. You can claim to be "open to the possibility" all you want, heck it may even win over a few members relatively new to this site, but those that have conversed with you over the years know such a claim to be utter nonsense. And I'd prefer you remain honest.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry Jan I stuffed up the quote thingy I dont know what I am doing to be honest I hope you and others can work out what you said and my reply.

What I believe is no more significant than the colour of my eyes, with regards what is truth. Do you agree?

What is truth? Is what you believe the truth. How can you know what is truth and what is not truth. Do you accept that reality is mind dependant and that truth may also be mind dependant. Or do you think reality is independant of the mind and does that approach extend to truth.


I agree that claiming something to have substance does not mean it does.

Then where does that leave you? Do you make claims in the belief they have substance and nevertheless conceed they may lack substance? Does that cause any difficulty with your belief system?

The scriptures aren't meant to offer proof of God, maybe that's where the misunderstanding begins with you.

Certainly I formed a general view that you were seeking to suggest the scriptures formed them foundation of your belief and I could observe that if they do not then we are left with your view that somehow humans simply know that God must be real because that is what they "feel".




Thank you for the compliment, but you are definitely mistaken.
You are welcome and I accept we can be mistaken when interpreting the world.

There are ultimately two ways to look at this:

God exists or God doesn't exist.
There is a third position and that is a no committal "maybe". Would you agree or insist on one of your options.

Something kick started everything (even if it simply popped into existence), or everything has always been.

Such an observation does not suggest a God in either approach. To suggest God provides answers to these alternate points could be viewed as unnecessarily simplistic.

Whatever kick started everything is technically God, as that is one of His/Its characteristics. If something has always been, then it is God (as that is another of His/Its characteristics.

I think you take a leap of faith to arrive at your claim. On this approach we can substitute the word God with other acceptable words such as "nature" or "physics". But to do this you are not talking about God in the sence many thesists would entertain.

How did we get to know, or think we know, the characteristics of God:

Perhaps given such knowing is a personal approach perhaps you could provide the forum with your view but do not forget your approach may be unique.

Either we get it from God, the kick starter, or it is a natural make up of the material process that brings forth minds and consciousness. It can't be wrong, and therefore theists aren't wrong. An atheist being a person who lacks belief in God, also isn't wrong, in that it is also right to lack belief. But that cannot mean that there is no God, only that they lack a belief in God.

I suggest if one percieves that one is infalible that is time to proceed with extreme caution.


Why would you be happy that you didn't offend me?
Did you try not to offend me, and then felt happy to have learned that you were successful in your pursuit?

You could have put that better or simply accepted my statement as an expression of joy that after accepting that I was being simplistic in my anologies and that you seemed somewhat offended, that upon being told by you that you were not offended I felt relief firstly and secondly happiness that I did not hurt another human who I had started to develop a respect for. I simply was happy its not complex and hardley needs a seemingly critical analysis.


It's as if you are oblivious to the subtleties of your own negative characteristic, and how they can be perceived.

Well you touch perhaps upon the obvious to others but less obvious to me. It is very easy to wonder why one has upset another. In this instance I glimpsed how others could reasonably percieve me and rather than say of them "they took it the wrong way" I can accept I presented somewhat caustic, which truthfully was not my intention. It is said, by who I do not know, that we learn from our mistakes and as far as I can determine the mistakes I may have or indeed have made I try to learn from such that my approach becomes slightly modified with a scincere hope I can do better next time.

We could have got passed this ages ago, if you had decided to engage my questions and points.

You may be correct but you did not comment on my post outlining what proof I expected. In reflection my post I thought flipant nevertheless you asked that question again without acknolegement of my answer and so I thought there to be no point providing replies be they flipant or not.



Why would I be unable d to entertain it?
Is it because I'm deficient in some way?

Well I can only be blunt but you present a position that suggests you have already determined the reality you will entertain. Just as you suggest I project a somewhat negative vibe I say you project a position not ready to entertain a reality other than the current one you have constructed. I felt I was being kind not to present something you could not or would not accept and frankly I really do not wish to errode someones belief. I find no difficulty living without a belief in anything in fact I am proud I am this way but I accept others have the need to believe in something. Truthfully I see such dependence as weak and I am not trying to insult anyone but that is the way I see others. I do not look down on them I just ca not understand that need. I just do not get it. I do not need a reason to be here on Earth nor do I think I am so special there must be more to life and also an after life.

I'm not avoiding the op. I'm sure you can appreciate that it is difficult to offer proof of God, by throwing up a few statements, and saying viola. Firstly, because we can't see God, and anything we can see, here, touch, taste, smell, must have a natural rational explanation (even if we don't know what it is). But does this mean that God doesn't exist?

Well look at it this way your reality demands God does in fact exist whereas I just think it is well being blunt again simply nonsence. I see belief as irrelevant. I am sorry but it is of no importance to me I dont get it. I think it is delussional and a non event. Sorry but I am trying to give you some understanding of my thoughts.

No. So if God exists, what could He/It be? That is the first question we must ask before begin trying to find proof of God. Wouldn't you agree?

I would love to agree but I can not even deal with "if he exsists" Sorry you may as well ask me if I believe in big foot for exammple. The question is meaningless for me. I can not discuss big foot because it is a none event. I become impatient at the prospect of giving tacit recognition to something to take the discussion further. I do not see anything to discuss. I use big foot not to be insulting but in the hope that you see big foot as something not real and a waste of time. I enjoy talking with you I dont like the subject. I am sorry but any mention of God is a turn off. I hope I want you to understand.


Yes I can address the op, but you must respect the subject matter at hand if you wish to progress.
Two questions:
Do you believe it is impossible for God to exist?

Without beating around the bush and being truthful I do believe it is impossible for God to exist.


If you believe it is can you explain why?

No I can not offer a reason other than it is to me so absurd I can not accept such a notion.

Forgive errors etc This devise seems to have a mind of its own suggesting words I miss but I hope you get my drift.

If you are trying to help me find God I thank you but it will only end in disappointment.


jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry I can not fix the above mess.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

When you say ''It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept'', what do you see in your mind when think of God in this context?

What do I think of in my mind when I think that God doesn't exist?

I think of an amalgam of pictures I saw from various texts. I have an image, albeit hazy and shifting, but it's no more an image than I have of Mother Nature, Gaia or a unicorn.

I recognize that it is not a real thing. I am satisfied that what we observe in the world is what there is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sorry I can not fix the above mess.
Alex

Hi Alex, not a problem.
Hi lite the section you wish to quote.
A little black box should appear with the word 'reply' in OT. Click on 'reply', and then scroll down to the section where you write.
The quote should be there already with quotation wraps.

If not, then once again hi lite the section you want to quote, copy it, scroll down to the reply section, then paste.
Hi lite the piece you just pasted, then look at the menu where you find bold, italics, etc. Right at the end where you will see a picture of a floppy disk. Next to that you will see a picture with some lines going across. Peer that, and you will be offered a menu, press 'quote', and that will wrap the 'quote' tags around the hi lite section.

If you want to distinguish who said what, then type '=Jan directly after the word 'quote'
[Quote =Jan]
The end quote should look like: [/quote]

Hope that helps.
Jan

 

[Write4U]

Jan Ardena said: ↑
When you say ''It's just the premise - that God actually exists - that I can't accept'', what do you see in your mind when think of God in this context?

I see a *permittive condition* which permits the occurrence of events as long as they follow a permissible mathematical chronology. At Planck scale there is no such requirement (uncertainty), but this uncertainty is causal to dynamism. So random causal events are permitted at that scale, but if this random event results in a physical certainty, any subsequent change must follow strict mathematical physical laws permitting that change.
If the mathematal physical laws do not permit an event, that event will not (cannot) occur.

I have no objection to calling this *permittive condition* = *God*. My objection is to the *common* concept of God as having sentience and motive. That would discard the entire theory of the *uncertainty effect*, and that presents a contradiction to current scientific understanding of causality..

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Hi Alex, not a problem.
Hi lite the section you wish to quote.
A little black box should appear with the word 'reply' in OT. Click on 'reply', and then scroll down to the section where you write.
The quote should be there already with quotation wraps.

If not, then once again hi lite the section you want to quote, copy it, scroll down to the reply section, then paste.
Hi lite the piece you just pasted, then look at the menu where you find bold, italics, etc. Right at the end where you will see a picture of a floppy disk. Next to that you will see a picture with some lines going across. Peer that, and you will be offered a menu, press 'quote', and that will wrap the 'quote' tags around the hi lite section.

If you want to distinguish who said what, then type '=Jan directly after the word 'quote'
[Quote =Jan]
The end quote should look like:

Hope that helps.
Jan[/QUOTE]

Hi Jan

The above will certainly help and thank you for taking the time to help me I really do appreciate you sharing your knowledge.

And again so sorry to make my post so difficult to read.

Moreover thank you for stimulating my thinking upon the subject.

I enjoy learning how others see the world and gaining an understanding upon matters foreign to me.

Inrelation to my last post it seems I can edit it now I will however learn from my mistake and thank to you do better next time.

I am coping with various difficulties which upon reflection cause me to be hasty and often simplistic in my expression and in addition I have little time to devote to things I enjoy. I do enjoy reading at this site but unfortunately have little to contribute in comparison to the excellent minds on this site.

I should stay out of discussions really but there is this need within me that drives me to get involved.

Again thank you for you have revealed your self as a gentleman.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Well a little better but I have no idea how that happened such that your quote was split.
Rather than accept responsibility I blame my device.
I am using a small pad and seeing what I type is limited to a couple of lines. My fault is my tools, yes I blame my tools and admit to being a bad tradesman, but really I need to get better tools a key board and a screen I can see.

Alex

 

[Billy T]

How did we get to know, or think we know, the characteristics of God

If God does exist, why wouldn't He care?

Your second quote above was responding to my suggestion that all the bad things in history (Hitler etc) could be explained, even if God did exist but just didn't care - give a damn what happened on Earth.
Your first quote implies you think God does give a damn -cares what happens on Earth.

Which is it?
If God exists, he does care or he does not care {about human activities}? OR do you admit that even granting God exist, there is nothing about his chaacteristic we can know. I. e. as I also suggested, he may be busy creating another universe and left his assistant, the Devil, to oversee the earth part of this universe. That would explain the repeated and numerous human disasters, mostly man-made.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your second quote above was responding to my suggestion that all the bad things in history (Hitler etc) could be explained, even if God did exist but just didn't care - give a damn what happened on Earth.
Your first quote implies you think God does give a damn -cares what happens on Earth.

I've already explained this, when I wrote about karma.

Bg. 2.17: Know that which pervades the entire body is indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul.

Quran 3:145: "And no soul can die but with Allah's permission — the term is fixed" (3:145).

Roman 6.23: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.

Which is it?
If God exists, he does care or he does not care {about human activities}? OR do you admit that even granting God exist, there is nothing about his chaacteristic we can know. I. e. as I also suggested, he may be busy creating another universe and left his assistant, the Devil, to oversee the earth part of this universe. That would explain the repeated and numerous human disasters, mostly man-made.

God cares for the soul.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have no objection to calling this *permittive condition* = *God*. My objection is to the *common* concept of God as having sentience and motive. That would discard the entire theory of the *uncertainty effect*, and that presents a contradiction to current scientific understanding of causality..

This thread isn't about ''the common concept of God'', it is about proof of God existence.
We can talk about sentience and motive, after we establish that God exists.
Do you accept that God exists?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do I think of in my mind when I think that God doesn't exist?

No. In the context of your refusal to accept the premise that God actually exists.

I think of an amalgam of pictures I saw from various texts. I have an image, albeit hazy and shifting, but it's no more an image than I have of Mother Nature, Gaia or a unicorn.

I can have those images as well, but it doesn't mean I can't accept the premise that God actually exists.

I recognize that it is not a real thing. I am satisfied that what we observe in the world is what there is.

It still doesn't explain why you can't accept the premise that God actually exists.
We can, and do (albeit in ignorance) think of this world in a way one could think of God.
So in effect, what you're saying could be a kind of Freudian slip.

What is boils down to, is that you must comprehend, honestly, what God is.
Once you can do that, then you will be able to explain why you cannot accept God's existence as a premise.

jan.

 

[Daecon]

You haven't proven that any Gods exist, you're pre-assuming the existence of (a) God.

 

[exchemist]

This thread isn't about ''the common concept of God'', it is about proof of God existence.
We can talk about sentience and motive, after we establish that God exists.
Do you accept that God exists?

jan.

That is arse about face. If you - as you appear to - want to propose unorthodox definitions of "god", that might be no more than the order we perceive in the world, then you need to define what you mean by the term, before demanding that people answer. For example, if you were to say, "God is the Laws of Thermodynamics", then I would say I do "believe in" them enough to trust them for all practical purposes. (But then I would also refuse to accept that your definition of God has any utility.)

I do hope you are not now playing a rhetorical game in which you try to broaden the meaning of God more and more, until you hope to succeed in extracting a statement of belief - in whatever it is by then - from someone.

So come on, define what you mean by God. You've just said, "God cares for the soul". Expand on that, please, before you demand people answer whether or not they believe in your idea of God.

 

[Write4U]

This thread isn't about ''the common concept of God'', it is about proof of God existence.
We can talk about sentience and motive, after we establish that God exists.
Do you accept that God exists?
jan.

Explain your concept of an existing God to me and I'll tell you if I agree or not. I'm afraid my previous statement is the best I can do at this time.

I have a feeling your concept of God is alittle different than the *common* concept of a sentient motivated God, but you have not clarified your concept of an existing God. How can anyone propose the existence of a God without some description of its properties?

The *common* description is that of a sentient and motivated being. I just can't make myself agree with that definition. There is just too much garbage attached to those propositions. That's why we have religious wars. Theists themselves cannot agree which description of God is correct. I believe today there are some 3000 religions, each with a different concept and description of God.

As of now I use David Bohm's *Wholeness and the Implicate Order*, which self-explanatory, whereas the word God does not really explain anything.

I like words which actually describe the thing it is supposed to define. Wholeness and Implicate Order, tells us exactly what it describes and how it functions at a fundamental level. Kind of helps the credibility.

In all my years here I have seen dozens of discussions like this about a sentient motivated God, but I have never had any argument about the the phrase "Wholeness and the Implicate Order', because everyone knows what that phrase means.

Wholeness and the Implicate Order by David Bohm

Wholeness and the Implicate Order ; 4.25***** · Rating Details · 717 Ratings · 50 Reviews)

David Bohm was one of the foremost scientific thinkers and philosophers of our time. Although deeply influenced by Einstein, he was also, more unusually for a scientist, inspired by mysticism. Indeed, in the 1970s and 1980s he made contact with both J. Krishnamurti and the Dalai Lama whose teachings helped shape his work. In both science and philosophy, Bohm's main concern was with understanding the nature of reality in general and of consciousness in particular. In this classic work he develops a theory of quantum physics which treats the totality of existence as an unbroken whole. Writing clearly and without technical jargon, he makes complex ideas accessible to anyone interested in the nature of reality

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/204523.Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order

 

[DaveC426913]

No. In the context of your refusal to accept the premise that God actually exists.

It's the same as my refusal to accept that Russell's Teapot exists.

The onus remains on the claimant. Until then, the assertion is not granted.

It still doesn't explain why you can't accept the premise that God actually exists.

It does not need explaining; the null hypothesis is the rational approach to a rational world.

Your stance is still flawed, despite all your fancy footwork; you are still trying to put the onus on others to show why God doesn't exist. The onus remains on you to present a compelling case.

And I guess I should have listened to others. It seems God's objective existence is the crux of the issue for you. So present your case.

 

[exchemist]

It's the same as my refusal to accept that Russell's Teapot exists.

The onus remains on the claimant. Until then, the assertion is not granted.



It does not need explaining; the null hypothesis is the rational approach to a rational world.

Your stance is still flawed, despite all your fancy footwork; you are still trying to put the onus on others to show why God doesn't exist. The onus remains on you to present a compelling case.

And I guess I should have listened to others. It seems God's objective existence is the crux of the issue for you. So present your case.

Indeed. One start point might be for Jan to explain what sort of God it is that he claims "cares for the soul" (post 913). That indicates a belief in one very particular sort of concept of God, I think, even though Jan seems reluctant to spell it out.