Proof there is a God

[Daecon]

Can you suggest better sources?

Jan.

I can suggest lots of equally-good-as-each-other sources. Why do you consider scriptures to be "the best"?

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

The first alternative (there was a beginning) is the correct scientific POV.

The scientific POV about the "kick start" is that there was a statistical fluctuation in the zero energy total, much like electron / positron pairs are being created out of the “nothingness” of the vacuum, but this original "kick start" experienced an immediate intense / rapid "inflation" so the equal amounts of positive energy and negative energy could not re-combine to zero as electron/positron pairs do.

The positive energy was without mass, but it was expanding (much slower than the inflation period of the big bang) so cooling, When the temperature got low enough, quarks formed, then later three at a time united themselves into protons and neutrons, and electrons were created to keep charge neutrality (zero net charge). I. e. the number of protons was equal to the number of electrons (and sames happened for their corresponding anti-particles). With still more expansion this initial 100% ionized plasma began to from neutral matter (mostly hydrogen and some helium). This matter had mutual gravitational attraction, so stars formed (the first ones were hundreds of time more massive than our sun, which formed much later)

The formation of neutral matter had another effect: The plasma no longer contained within its self the internal radiation (that any body at any temperature has). Initially this radiation temperature (in a black body distribution) was very high, but it decreased as the universe expanded. We now see that this “cosmic background radiation” is much, much cooler, with a temperature of only 2.7K (as I recall)

So if what you call the statistical fluctuation, the "kick start" and inflation, that immediately followed is: "God" I can agree with that. But clearly it has no consciousness, or will, or purpose, or characteristic like “all knowing” 'loving,” etc. - It was just a statistical fluctuation that with prompt inflation created the universe, while preserving total energy and charge at zero, etc.

The positive energy I spoke of above is exactly equal to the negative energy created in the big bang but only recently has it been identified as Dark Energy and known to be why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not slowing down under the mutual gravitational attraction of matter. I. e. the net force of the Dark Energy, now at least, is over powering the mutual gravity attraction of the matter created from the positive energy.

There is a reason you're computer has a refresh button because current information is always incomplete (Godel), the same for perceptions of reality. (Heinsberg) Probability represents freewill in a determined totality written by God. This solves the problem of infinite regress as well as consciousness. Einstein was right "God does not play dice".

Quantum foam of probable outcomes colliding in the gravitational sea of infinity "0" undefined. All seemingly random events are but controlled on a complex plane. "Theoretical Physicist James Gates finds computer code in string theory equation" (Hiden variable).
Like God there is no direct evidence raining in string theory, but what you do see is works of God ever so slightly if you look close enough. Evolution is Gods refresh button. A finite mind cannot fathom infinity so it registers it as "0" undefined just like the singularity that currently most will refuse to deal with. Irrational Chaos with the guidance of Devinity, child rearing. All the child can see is the small picture just the discrete steps.
"Evolution of the gravitational field"
Like Fourier transforms directing nanoparticles, temporal delay must remain a consideration before Eureka arrives...!

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
We are parts of parts complex particles the latest model of creation (evolution) that we are currently aware of on paper.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

The universe, creation it's music for God.

Don't ever get mad at God He is infinite and can always undo any wrong and injustice but He will do so on His own time on Judgement day.

 

[BrianHarwarespecialist]

Like the illusion of time life and death are as trivial as walking through doors to different rooms, but God see's everthing at once allowing the observer a margin of probable error.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

When the Sun sets in the saucer of milk the cat will sing to the cuckoo clock.

Alex

 

[exchemist]

''The'' Complete Whole. It is a description of God.
The nature of God is described as spirit...

John4:2 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

An exert from wiki basically describes 'spirit' as The English word spirit, from Latinspiritus "breath", has many different meanings and connotations, most of them relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body.

A more comprehensive word would be ''Atman''.

• Ātman (Hinduism), meaning 'self, soul', a philosophical concept common to all schools of Hindu philosophy

• Ātman (Buddhism), a reference to the essential self

• Ātman (Jainism), a philosophical term used within Jainism to identify the soul

Why are you asking me?
What do you think?
Or are you not going to allow yourself to?




It's not my idea.



You're being invited to take a critical look at what can be called the concept of God. While you are not forced to believe in God, you can decide for yourself what the meaning of God is. So yes God is personal, but is also impersonal, according to scriptures.

jan.

There are all sorts of concepts of God. For this reason, if you ask Write4U, or Dave, "Do you believe in God?", you need to be prepared to explain what you mean by "God", in the question you are asking. It is your question, after all. When you asked Dave and he said "No", you then tried, rather absurdly I thought, to get him to say what it was that he did not believe in. But Dave's answer is just the answer of someone who sees no need for any hypothesis with the label "God" attached to it. That is a perfectly normal, extremely well known and reasonable position to take. It makes no sense to demand that anyone describe the hypotheses about the world they consider unnecessary. Where would you stop? The luminiferous aether? Russell's teapot? Alien abductions? Father Christmas? It is up to the person asserting the need for a hypothesis to provide reasons for why it should be considered.

I'm not sure what you seek to imply by asking whether I might not allow myself to think. I should have thought from my responses it is clear that I am thinking - about your idea of God. From what you now say, I suppose we need to get clear(ish) what "spirit" means. I presume, combining what you say about "spirit" as non-material with the the previous ideas which imply God is conscious, that for you, "spirit" means a non-material conscious entity. Would that be right? And would a "soul" (another term you used recently) also be an example of a non-material conscious entity?

 

[Sarkus]

I haven't made any claims.

What others, e.g. those who haven't dealt with you for too long, may not have yet realised about you is that you have a blind-spot when it comes to accepting the logical deductions of what you do say.
For example, you have claimed in post #670: "The God of the scriptures, how ever, cannot not exist." To anyone who understands logical deduction, this IS a claim by you that the God of the scriptures exist.

Other examples, some requiring an appreciation of deduction, others more blatant:
Post #716: "God as defined in the Bible does exist."
Post #719: "On the contrary. Every human being came into a world where it common KNOWLEDGE (knowledge being a natural aspect of sentient beings) of a Supreme Being.
As far as you, me, and every single atheist that ever existed is aware of it's fact."
Post #723: "You are simply invoking your god given ability to oppose this fact.
...
It is based on the misuse of your god given ability, namely wishful thinking."
Post #727: "When we accept that god does not exist, we are attempting to change a reality which has been around before you, me, everyone you know, ever known, and yet to know, existed."
Post #753: "If God was a made up concept, that idea, like all other man made ideas, would have bit the dust long ago."
Post #902: Your argument as to God either being that which kickstarted it all, or that which has always existed.

So please drop this dishonesty about you not claiming that God exists; it is an implied claim in a great deal of what you write. Or are you still under the misconception that if you don't explicitly state "God exists!" that you can then say that you have not made such a claim?

 

[exchemist]

Like the illusion of time life and death are as trivial as walking through doors to different rooms, but God see's everthing at once allowing the observer a margin of probable error.

...although, at the price of an outbreak of greengrocer's apostrophe......

 

[exchemist]

Why don't you show us Yazata?

Did you not catch when I said that God is both personal and impersonal?
Or did you conveniently miss that part so you can use this diversion tactic?

What is your problem with me and the Hare-Krishnas?

jan.

Jan, it is quite monstrous for you to call Yazata's post a diversion. It is no such thing. It explicitly sheds light on the very issue I was asking you about: specifically, your conception of God vis-a-vis the various alternatives. His post points out that the material on which your quote was based does not necessarily personify this "Complete Whole" thingie, whatever it may be.

So here we have an alternative concept of God, different from yours in that consciousness and caring for souls need not be present in this conception of God.

This is interesting, because where Write4U seemed to be going was a sort of ultra-Einsteinian Pantheistic view, in which "God" means little more than the underlying order that science shows us seems to exist in the physical world. This sort of conception of "God" is one that, to my mind, redefines the term in such a way as to remove almost all meaning from it, but evidently it is what some people mean when they assent to or decline the proposition that "God exists".

So, far from this being diversionary, we are now getting closer to understanding what you, and others who think differently, mean by "God". This is quite important when people are going round asking others whether or not they believe in "God", don't you think?

Furthermore, we also get closer to seeing why Dave declines the proposition, on the grounds that "God" is an unnecessary hypothesis. If we define "God" as "the underlying order that seems to be present in nature", and no more than that, then Dave and I would of course assent to the probable existence of that order. But neither of us would see what is gained by labelling it "God". Whereas, if "God" is taken to mean your (scriptural?) God, there is certainly a need for the label, because of the unique properties ascribed to such a "God", but the problem then becomes one of whether there is any objective evidence of this "God" and, if not, whether there can be any other grounds for belief in it.

 

[Yazata]

I haven't made any claims

For example, you have claimed in post #670: "The God of the scriptures, how ever, cannot not exist." To anyone who understands logical deduction, this IS a claim by you that the God of the scriptures exist.

Other examples, some requiring an appreciation of deduction, others more blatant:
Post #716: "God as defined in the Bible does exist."
Post #719: "On the contrary. Every human being came into a world where it common KNOWLEDGE (knowledge being a natural aspect of sentient beings) of a Supreme Being.
As far as you, me, and every single atheist that ever existed is aware of it's fact."
Post #723: "You are simply invoking your god given ability to oppose this fact.
...
It is based on the misuse of your god given ability, namely wishful thinking."
Post #727: "When we accept that god does not exist, we are attempting to change a reality which has been around before you, me, everyone you know, ever known, and yet to know, existed."
Post #753: "If God was a made up concept, that idea, like all other man made ideas, would have bit the dust long ago."
Post #902: Your argument as to God either being that which kickstarted it all, or that which has always existed.

So please drop this dishonesty about you not claiming that God exists; it is an implied claim in a great deal of what you write. Or are you still under the misconception that if you don't explicitly state "God exists!" that you can then say that you have not made such a claim?

Don't forget Post # 749:

"Krishna is Krishna. God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found within the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself. He is understood to be identical in quality to the living entity."

and later in the same post:

"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 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."

I have no objection to Jan's faith, even though I don't share it. It's certainly as plausible as Christianity or Islam. I'm just pointing out that it's a specific sort of theology that makes very definite claims.

I think that most of what Jan posts illustrates that belief system: the monotheist universality of all religions, the essential role of 'scripture' and the idea that all scriptures teach the same thing when properly understood, the idea that India's scriptures are the primordial root from which all other religious traditions branched, the idea that all sentient beings naturally possess innate God-knowledge that only needs to be realized, and the rather insulting idea that atheists are those who are afraid to do that...

 

[exchemist]

Don't forget Post # 749:

"Krishna is Krishna. God with an upper case 'G' is a generic description of Krishna. God is to be found within the heart of every living entity, according to Krishna Himself. He is understood to be identical in quality to the living entity."

and later in the same post:

"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 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."

I have no objection to Jan's faith, even though I don't share it. It's certainly as plausible as Christianity or Islam. I'm just pointing out that it's a specific sort of theology that makes very definite claims.

I think that most of what Jan posts illustrates that belief system: the monotheist universality of all religions, the essential role of 'scripture' and the idea that all scriptures teach the same thing when properly understood, the idea that India's scriptures are the primordial root from which all other religious traditions branched, the idea that all sentient beings naturally possess innate God-knowledge that only needs to be realized, and the rather insulting idea that atheists are those who are afraid to do that...

Quite so. In fact, speaking as someone born and bred as a Christian, the intellectual daring was in thinking that perhaps, after all, none of it was literally true at all.

The second mildly daring intellectual leap (or so it felt) was in thinking that perhaps, in spite of it not being literally true, the teaching, traditions and observances nonetheless had value and should not be dismissed. So, to date, I have ended up describing not a circle but a 3/4 circle or so. Who knows what will happen in the last quarter of my life (if I am spared for another 20 years).

 

[Jan Ardena]

There are all sorts of concepts of God.

No there isn't.
Just as there aint all sorts of concepts of music.
We take different aspects from the source, but ultimately there is God, and there is music.

For this reason, if you ask Write4U, or Dave, "Do you believe in God?", you need to be prepared to explain what you mean by "God", in the question you are asking.

I have done on numerous occasions. They can use any scriptural definition, and I will more than likely concur.
I gave Write4U a text which I find a good match (far better explained) to what my definition is. What more do they want?

When you asked Dave and he said "No", you then tried, rather absurdly I thought, to get him to say what it was that he did not believe in.

I can't recall this. Can you leave the post number so I can see it for myself?

I'm not sure what you seek to imply by asking whether I might not allow myself to think. I should have thought from my responses it is clear that I am thinking - about your idea of God.

Why do you stress that it is my idea of God?
Can you explain what a explanation of God would be like, that wasn't someone own ideas?

The question I asked you applies to this type of response from you. Instead of following on, and looking at the scriptural source, just as an informational sources, first obtaining a broader understand of what is God, and secondly, decide whether or not such a God is possible, you simply go sideways, concentrating on things other than the point I'm making.

At what point do you think we can look at God, in the scripture, and just talk about Him/It, even as a fictional character?

It makes no sense to demand that anyone describe the hypotheses about the world they consider unnecessary. Where would you stop? The luminiferous aether? Russell's teapot? Alien abductions? Father Christmas? It is up to the person asserting the need for a hypothesis to provide reasons for why it should be considered.

So why make claims about God's non existence, if God is unnecessary?
I presume he has some interest in the subject matter regard proving there is a God.
Everyone who frequents forums like these, adding their two cents, know why God is to be considered.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be here. So please don't give me that.

I'm not sure what you seek to imply by asking whether I might not allow myself to think. I should have thought from my responses it is clear that I am thinking - about your idea of God. From what you now say, I suppose we need to get clear(ish) what "spirit" means. I presume, combining what you say about "spirit" as non-material with the the previous ideas which imply God is conscious, that for you, "spirit" means a non-material conscious entity. Would that be right? And would a "soul" (another term you used recently) also be an example of a non-material conscious entity?

Would you like me to find passages in scriptures that explain this far better than I can?

I'm not here to talk about my idea of God, even though my idea of God does concur with scripture.
I'm here trying to prove there is a God, and for that we need to have an understanding of what God is, and the best source
despite what Deacon seems to think, are scriptures.

Is that okay with you, or are you going to keep making this about me?

jan.

 

[exchemist]

No there isn't.
Just as there aint all sorts of concepts of music.
We take different aspects from the source, but ultimately there is God, and there is music.



I have done on numerous occasions. They can use any scriptural definition, and I will more than likely concur.
I gave Write4U a text which I find a good match (far better explained) to what my definition is. What more do they want?



I can't recall this. Can you leave the post number so I can see it for myself?



Why do you stress that it is my idea of God?
Can you explain what a explanation of God would be like, that wasn't someone own ideas?

The question I asked you applies to this type of response from you. Instead of following on, and looking at the scriptural source, just as an informational sources, first obtaining a broader understand of what is God, and secondly, decide whether or not such a God is possible, you simply go sideways, concentrating on things other than the point I'm making.

At what point do you think we can look at God, in the scripture, and just talk about Him/It, even as a fictional character?



So why make claims about God's non existence, if God is unnecessary?
I presume he has some interest in the subject matter regard proving there is a God.
Everyone who frequents forums like these, adding their two cents, know why God is to be considered.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be here. So please don't give me that.



Would you like me to find passages in scriptures that explain this far better than I can?

I'm not here to talk about my idea of God, even though my idea of God does concur with scripture.
I'm here trying to prove there is a God, and for that we need to have an understanding of what God is, and the best source
despite what Deacon seems to think, are scriptures.

Is that okay with you, or are you going to keep making this about me?

jan.

I'm making this about you, simply because you are the one trying to prove there is a God.

In order for you to do that, you must define what you mean by the term. I have shown in the previous few posts that there are potentially big differences between alternative conceptions of God, for example Pantheist, "order in the universe" vs. a conscious spirit that cares for souls. A proof of the first seems likely to look quite different from a proof of the second.

There is thus room for significant misunderstandings - and thus a failure of your attempt - if what is meant by "God" is not clear at the outset of your attempt at proof.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you consider them the "best sources"? What criteria are you using?

Can you suggest better sources?

This is a pretty blatant attempt to avoid answering the question by positing a false dichotomy.

Consider a hypothetical parallel:
D: "Why do you consider infinity plus one to be greater than infinity?"
J: "Can you suggest a better number to be greater than infinity?"
The false dichotomy here is to implicitly assert that one must choose either this number or that number. In fact, the correct answer is: no number.

In your response, aside from actually avoiding answering, lies the implicit premise that some scripture must be the best, the question is just a matter of which.

There is a third option: that no scriptures are accurate. As always, I'm not saying this is true; I'm simply dismantling flawed logic.

Being evasive and committing an avoidance fallacy are signs that you're logically painting yourself into a corner.

 

[DaveC426913]

So why make claims about God's non existence, if God is unnecessary?
I presume he has some interest in the subject matter regard proving there is a God.
Everyone who frequents forums like these, adding their two cents, know why God is to be considered.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be here. So please don't give me that.

So, people talk about the concept therefore it objectively exists?
Does that apply to Russell's Teapot too?
Rhetorical questions. We all agree the answer is no to both.

This is a red herring. What people like to discuss has little bearing on proving something exists.

 

[Write4U]

If we define "God" as "the underlying order that seems to be present in nature", and no more than that, then Dave and I would of course assent to the probable existence of that order. But neither of us would see what is gained by labelling it "God". Whereas, if "God" is taken to mean your (scriptural?) God, there is certainly a need for the label, because of the unique properties ascribed to such a "God", but the problem then becomes one of whether there is any objective evidence of this "God" and, if not, whether there can be any other grounds for belief in it.

Count me in on that definition and the logical consequence using Ockham's razor..

p.s. this is also why I like Tegmark's concept of a mathematical universe. It defines that order.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm making this about you, simply because you are the one trying to prove there is a God.

In order for you to do that, you must define what you mean by the term.

Already done that.

The Personality of Godhead is perfect and complete, and because He is completely perfect, all emanations from Him, such as this phenomenal world, are perfectly equipped as complete wholes. Whatever is produced of the Complete Whole is also complete in itself. Because He is the Complete Whole, even though so many complete units emanate from Him, He remains the complete balance.

From this description we can understand that whatever is emanated from the Complete Whole, is also perfectly situated within the Complete Whole. I know you don't believe that this is necessarily true, but do you comprehend it?

. I have shown in the previous few posts that there are potentially big differences between alternative conceptions of God, for example Pantheist, "order in the universe" vs. a conscious spirit that cares for souls. A proof of the first seems likely to look quite different from a proof of the second.

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I gave a link to the meaning of Brahman earlier. Here it is again:

In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.
In major schools of Hindu philosophy it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.
It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.
Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Brahman is the first stage of three, of realization of the Absolute Truth (God/Bhagavan)

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan, it is quite monstrous for you to call Yazata's post a diversion. It is no such thing. It explicitly sheds light on the very issue I was asking you about: specifically, your conception of God vis-a-vis the various alternatives. His post points out that the material on which your quote was based does not necessarily personify this "Complete Whole" thingie, whatever it may be.

How did he do that, exactly?

So here we have an alternative concept of God, different from yours in that consciousness and caring for souls need not be present in this conception of God.

It's not different, it's just a different aspect.
The impersonal side of God, is like the body of a person.
The body seemingly acts of its own accord, only needing maintenance at certain intervals.
The body only acts that way because of the person (life force). Once the person is gone, the body ceases to act.
The impersonalists do not recognize the person (at least until Adi Shankara).
The material world is basically the body of God, this can be understood by the links and quotes I gave.

If we are emanations of the Complete Whole, and we are therefore perfectly equipped complete wholes, then it stands to reason that if we care, and have consciousness, then the Complete Whole must have care, and consciousness.
Is that a reasonable analysis?

So, far from this being diversionary, we are now getting closer to understanding what you, and others who think differently, mean by "God". This is quite important when people are going round asking others whether or not they believe in "God", don't you think?

Given the thread title, why does it matter what I personally think or believe?
I didn't make God up, the concept of God was here before I was born.
I'm just looking into it like anybody else would.

As a person with a scientific approach to life, and the world, don't you think the way to rationally analyse the concept of God, is to look firstly at the biggest source of information on God, and comprehend what God is (even if that goes beyond your personal conception)?

Furthermore, we also get closer to seeing why Dave declines the proposition, on the grounds that "God" is an unnecessary hypothesis.

If God exists, then God isn't an unnecessary hypothesis.
So what makes someone hold to the position that God does not exist?

If we define "God" as "the underlying order that seems to be present in nature", and no more than that, then Dave and I would of course assent to the probable existence of that order.

You seem to forget that consciousness, and caring for others is also present in that nature, which also must be defined as God, by that logic.

But neither of us would see what is gained by labelling it "God".

Labels aren't important (this is what I'm trying to through to Yazata).
It is what it is.

We label it God, because God is distinct from the workings of the material world. Just as exchemist is distinct from the machinations of the bodily machine, or from his car.

Whereas, if "God" is taken to mean your (scriptural?) God, there is certainly a need for the label, because of the unique properties ascribed to such a "God", but the problem then becomes one of whether there is any objective evidence of this "God" and, if not, whether there can be any other grounds for belief in it.

Why do you have to label it as MY scriptural God?
Can you not read the scriptures for yourself (rhetorical).

Before we can decide on whether or not there is objective evidence, and/or how to recognize this evidence (if there is any), we have to comprehend it.
We have to start from somewhere. Do you agree?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, people talk about the concept therefore it objectively exists?

No. It means that there is a good chance they are interested in the subject.
People don't generally waste their time talking about things that are unnecessary in forums like these.

Does that apply to Russell's Teapot too?
Rhetorical questions. We all agree the answer is no to both.

Russell's Teapot seems to be a convenient way to dodge having to accept the possibility of God.
Plus it only works in certain types of dialogue, but not this one.

This is a red herring. What people like to discuss has little bearing on proving something exists.

I neither said, nor meant that.
Your putting words into my mouth.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is a pretty blatant attempt to avoid answering the question by positing a false dichotomy.

Consider a hypothetical parallel:
D: "Why do you consider infinity plus one to be greater than infinity?"
J: "Can you suggest a better number to be greater than infinity?"
The false dichotomy here is to implicitly assert that one must choose either this number or that number. In fact, the correct answer is: no number.

In your response, aside from actually avoiding answering, lies the implicit premise that some scripture must be the best, the question is just a matter of which.

There is a third option: that no scriptures are accurate. As always, I'm not saying this is true; I'm simply dismantling flawed logic.

Being evasive and committing an avoidance fallacy are signs that you're logically painting yourself into a corner.

I'm not avoiding at all.
I don't know of any better source to gain information about God, and would love to know what better sources there are out there.
Why wouldn't this be the case? I'm interested in the subject matter of God.

jan.