Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

I always do.

And you sometimes fail, as we all do.

Write4U said: ↑
IMO, they are all flawed, which rules out the concept that scripture is *divine* and reveals *ultimate truth* .

This doesn't answer the questions I asked.

Yes it does, the implication of my answer was that literary *fruit of a poisoned tree" is by definition not admissible as evidence of Truth.

Write4U said: ↑
1: Is it necessary for a prime causality to have human attributes?
IMO, no.

Does it have to be necessary for it to be the case?

That was the question posed to you.

Write4U said: ↑
2: Is possible that the BB (creation) was a natural imperative, an inevitability?
IMO, yes.

Did nature bring itself into existence, from a state of non existence? Is that what you are saying?

No, The Universe (along with its natural mathematical function) created Nature and Natural laws (constants), was brought into existence from a state of non-existence. I think Paddo addressed that with his link to Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing".

What is evolution the result of?

Mostly minor chemical mutations, but as we get to a smaller scale, any chemical mutation may well change a simple organism in a drastic way. This is less noticeable in in larger organisms, but an occasional drastic mutation, such as the fusion of two separate genomes into a longer compound genome, creating a new a new branch of potential evolution.

This whole process lies in a "range of probabilities and is not a question of either/or, but merely a statistical probability, given *sufficient time* (which may be at Planck scale)

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by fallible man."

Does that mean the Bible, or any scripture is wrong?
Is it impossible for the scriptures be absolutely correct? jan.

The burden on me is to produce only one inconsistency, whereas the burden of the extraordinary claim of a *supernatural* causality on which Scripture rests as a *premise* requires *perfection*. I would rate that probability very low on the scale of the probability as a possible causalities. Fact is NO ONE KNOWS, some just believe they do. It is one of the potentials of our ability for abstract thought.
But not proof of anything and certainly not proof of God (as described IN scripture). You cannot be selective in this area. Personally, except for the prayers and bells and whistles, most religions do have *some truths*, but usually these turn out to be *secular truths* and not divine in nature.

 

[Sarkus]

I see it the other way round.

The laws of nature are observed, comprehended and predicted by humans.
Nature is the star of the show.

The laws of nature, as being discussed, are the objective structure of nature, without which nature would not be as is. It is nature itself that is observed, comprehended and predicted by humans, and from that we try to infer the underlying laws. But those laws exist as objective laws nonetheless. They existed before humanity observed them, and they will exist long after we have ceased to be able to do so. They are the relationships between all things within nature and all other things within nature.

Whether our current understanding of those laws is correct or not is irrelevant, as we are not discussing the current state of affairs as understood by humans, but by the objective laws of nature themselves, synonymous with nature itself.

So please, for the last time, stop trying to squirm your way out of things. If you have no desire to discuss the matter sensibly then please have the decency to just leave the thread, at least until you think enough distance has been put between you and the criticism you refuse to face. That would be preferable than your continuing efforts to drag thread after thread after thread into the cesspool (in all but actual location within this website).

If you seriously wish to continue, then accept that in this discussion that references to "laws of nature", "natural law" and "nature" are synonymous.
And that if something is defined as "supernatural" it doesn't just mean beyond current understanding but beyond the natural absolutely.
If someone's opinion is that something appears supernatural then, as explained and as previously hand-waved away by you, this does become an assessment against current understanding of what is natural.

There is now no excuse other than your deliberate and obstinate dishonesty to continue using alternative definitions of such terms within this discussion, okay.

Did you see my quotes?
Or did you ignore them because you threw a hissy-fit?

I ignored them because I have already highlighted your equivocation in the issue, between the philosophy of natural laws (pertaining to human morals, legislation etc) and the laws of nature as being discussed here.
You chose to ignore that criticism but then reconfirm your equivocation with those quotes, and your deliberate refusal to accept the term as being discussed but rather stick to a particular definition that you have been repeatedly told is not within the context of this discussion.
Why should I then bother responding to them when I have already done so, just for you to ignore it again?

 

[Sarkus]

No, The Universe (along with its natural mathematical function) created Nature and Natural laws (constants), was brought into existence from a state of non-existence. I think Paddo addressed that with his link to Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing".

I would disagree in terminology as I would equate "nature" with the universe. They surely describe exactly the same thing. The laws of nature would be the (mathematical) functions - but again I see these as being synonymous with nature.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes it does, the implication of my answer was that literary *fruit of a poisoned tree" is by definition not admissible as evidence of Truth.

I'm okay if you want to use legal jargon to boost your (don't moan if I do).
But there is nothing illegal regarding scriptures.

If there are laws, then it stands to reason there are law makers, or maker.
There are laws which govern the material world, hence they were constructed.

The burden on me is to produce only one inconsistency, whereas the burden of the extraordinary claim of a *supernatural* causality on which

You've only produced links so far, I'm still waiting to hear your reasoning, on how different perspectives in the Bible, render all scriptures flawed, based on a mere legal case.

What is unusual about the supernatural?
I would say its very ordinary.

Scripture rests as a *premise* requires *perfection*.

Can you elaborate on this?
Thanks in advance.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

If there are laws, then it stands to reason there are law makers, or maker.
There are laws which govern the material world, hence they were constructed.

No.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No.

Why?

jan.

 

[exchemist]

I would disagree in terminology as I would equate "nature" with the universe. They surely describe exactly the same thing. The laws of nature would be the (mathematical) functions - but again I see these as being synonymous with nature.

Actually we went through some of this on another thread, I think. The so-called "laws" of nature are, for the most part, approximations put forward by certain human beings and accordingly named after them. For example Newton's Laws of Motion, or Lenz's Law, Kepler's Laws or Raoult's Law, or Boyle's Law. In my opinion the term "law" is unfortunate, as it gives rise to the idea of a lawmaker, when no such entity is implied. And I say "approximations" quite deliberately, as in many cases the "laws" are only strictly obeyed by idealised forms of matter, such as ideal gases or whatever - in other words they are not strictly obeyed by real matter at all.

I would therefore prefer to say that these "laws" are human expressions, encapsulating the order we see in nature.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes but I do not trust that they are always my beliefs. I believe we are always being played, prayed upon and manipulated. Often when I find I have a view on something I ask why do I think this or that.
I look at others and ask why they think the way they do.

I think you'll find that about most people when the years start to advance.

I wonder how so many folk believe they can not be wrong. I like to think I do not believe anything really and enjoy not taking a side or position.

Are you sure it's not you believing that folk believe they aren't wrong?
I find that most subjects can be reasoned out, and as such one can get beneath the vaneer (so to speak) and get behind the steadfast position.

One thing I do work with is the notion that "things just are" meaning everything awaits ones personal determination and judgement before it takes on a reality.

Not sure I understand what you're getting at.

By this I mean when I look at someone or hear their view it is I (and me) who classes them good or bad, rude or polite, strong or weak, rich or poor and so on.... I try not to make little boxes for classification. I find this nuetrality sets me free. Generally this enables me to see everyone as good, every situation as opportunity and even the most horrid news I see as useful in so far as that will no doubt motivate many humans to work upon improving things so that next time things will be less horrible.

Okay, I get it.

We are endowed with intelligence, and it is our most valuable asset, and we are capable of learning from our mistakes. An older person has experience, by making mistakes, and over time come to understand the error of their ways. Or at least the opportunity to.

I agree that horrid news is useful in the way you say, but I see that as an optimistic, positive approach to something that occurs on a moment basis, which we have no control over. And if we let it get us down, we will become depressed, pessimistic, and all that nasty stuff that dims our intelligence.

Moreover I enjoy peace and happiness and think others may be uplifted because I set a positive example.

That is what goodness can be, if you really mean it. I'm not suggesting you don't, but a lot of people do say things like that, but do not mean it when push comes to shove. In this day and age, it is a very difficult position to maintain, is what I mean. If you do mean it, then that is positive.

I thought you may have fears and could understand you may think I would have similar fears.

The fear I'm talking about is the fear that through studying the scriptures, you will come to realise why people believe, and have believed, since time immemorial, God exists. Meaning the information you have built up to this point in time, is hopelessly inadequate by comparison. That it contains everything about who and what you are. I'm not saying this is true (even though it is for me), but it is entirely possible. I find people afraid to really look into scriptures (even religious people), preferring to stand back and criticise, but have no real understanding of what they're criticising.
Look at the responses here. No one wants to go into scriptures at all, yet they want to criticise them, and claim they are fictitious, flawed, or just wrong.

I am not sure how I can answer you here Jan other to say that there came a time when I realised what I said earlier made sence, that my death may have others sorry to see me go but for me I would not know from there it was clear to me I me, myself whatever this little voice is in my mind is eternal by its own measurement. It leaves me fearless which seems to be a good thing as most people I observe are full of fear, they are afraid of living and scared of dying, how nice not to be aflicted like that and be free to enjoy life, hold no guilt and harbour no regret.

I agree with you. I have never felt mortal, even though I know I will someday die. By that I mean, I have no idea what non existence means with regard to me. The only way to imagine non existence, is to not exist. Otherwise you are just imagining yourself not being where you are. Which is not the same thing.

This is the foundation of scriptural knowledge. The real purpose of religion/yoga is to realise that we are eternal. That was, IMO, the purpose of Yashua (to name one realized soul).

So you see we can communicate at a point, where we can discuss scripture without arguing like enemies. I wish I could get that through to Sarkus.

How I smile when I hear those words because I recall sitting in on conference between my old master solicitor (at the time he was 85 and of extrodinary intelect with no sence of humour in fact most blunt) and a client, going over a lease agreement. The client asked" But Mr. H... What will happen when I die? "... He lowered his glasses and seriously answered..." Why they will bury you of course"!
No one laughed.
And so my answer to your question is "they will bury me of course"

Do you think you ARE your body, or do you think YOU, the entity that is thinking and typing these responses, separate to the body?
Bear in mind you did talk about observing the eternal, earlier.

If there is a judgement day I have no reason to fear it I sincerely think I have been decent all my life and been a help rather than a burden.

I take it, being decent, peaceful, and happy, are important to you.
Why? Obviously they are great virtues from the perspective of goodness.
But why does it matter?

Maybe you can take something from my simple approach maybe not. You seem to think about things thats good.

I do try to have a simple approach, and I am aware of why a simple approach is superior. But that is something I have to come to terms with. At the moment it's not that easy. But at least I have an idea of why it is I like you.

I dont trust anything as I have said earlier and so I reject most everything written by humans as merely their view.

Why reject it (unless it is obviously reject-able)? Humans are endowed with intelligence, and some use it in the mode of goodness. How is it that I agree with you on some things, and disagree on others?
If I rejected you, I wouldn't have a glimpse of yours or anyone's intelligence.
If you reject all human writings, then how do you know who you can and can't trust? Unless you just don't trust anyone.

I think we should pit our intelligence against those intelligences we don't agree with, and see what comes out. The alternative is, we just become dumbed down, IMO.

So many things come down to one human conning another and I see religion as a con.
Heck it is so convenient, free will is a cop out, Gods none appearance again convenient.
Absence of everything and yet we have scriptures etc.... Mmmmm all man made... So given the bs humans come up with and their predisposition to fairy tales, superstition and the need to control others I reject all their fairy tales.

What if we genuinely cannot see God with the eyes we have? There are so many things we cannot see, yet totally rely upon. Why not God also?

As I said, we are an intelligent species, and what we don't see with our eyes, we can know through intelligence. The scriptures are so much more profound than you seem to give them credit for. In this day and age, that is what we have to understand what is God, and what our relationship to Him is. Of course my opinion, but it is the opinion of so many others who have spent a little time looking into scriptures.

If God wnats me he knows where to find me.

According to scriptures, God is with you, in your heart. He is the only friend you have. It is through His mercy that you are experiencing what it is you are experiencing. He never left, and will never leave you. He will give the appearance of not existing if that is your desire.

Of course all of that may not mean anything to you, and you would be well within your human right (natural law, folks) to brush it aside as fairy tales, and orbiting teapots. But from my perspective, I understand that to be His mercy.

And frankly the religious folk I have met have been hypocrites, and so many selfish and greedy.
I know that can not be the way for all but sadly that has been my personal experience.
In law (and real estate) you get to observe how greedy and dishonest people behave.

I agree with you. People claim to be representing God, but they're simply representing their own personal interest, and leading people astray. That is so sad, but true.
But there is a point to religion, just as there is a point to education. I believe I touched on it a good few posts back when we were talking about karma, so I won't bore you with it in this post.

I like you also Jan you present to me at least as decent I have no problem with the way you argue, as I said very entertaining.

With all these compliments, I'm going to find it hard to beat you in argument.
Is this a tactic of yours?
If so, it is very good. I'll have to remember it when arguing with Sarkus.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I would therefore prefer to say that these "laws" are human expressions, encapsulating the order we see in nature.

Thank you exchemist.
Does this mean we are best friends?

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... through studying the scriptures, you will come to realise why people believe, and have believed, since time immemorial, God exists. ... jan.

The scriptures you speak of have existed for less than 2000 years. Before that, in "time immemorial" people had many gods, The Romans and Greeks had at least 30; most with their own temples and areas of special responsibility.

All primitive people from: "time immemorial" have had more than half dozen gods (The river god, the rain god, the god of the hunt, god of their sacred places, usually a mountain, etc.) Only the Jews (in western culture - I don't know much about the others) have believed in the existence of one god, and for only about 5,000 years, much less than "time immemorial."

Hold what ever POV you like, but don't misrepresent history.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

We are endowed with intelligence, and it is our most valuable asset, and we are capable of learning from our mistakes. An older person has experience, by making mistakes, and over time come to understand the error of their ways. Or at least the opportunity to.

I am fortunate I learnt early that to learn I could observe others and not stumble where they had fallen. One learns just as well from the mistakes of others. All my experiences good or bad I see as positive. I have no guilt or regret because I have always done the best I could and not taken anyone down. I have been humble in victory and become friends with those I have beaten. I respect others and so I respect myself.

Do you think you ARE your body, or do you think YOU, the entity that is thinking and typing these responses, separate to the body?

I dont know. They are my arms and legs but cut them off and I am still here and you could cut away a lot and I would still be here.
Am I sounding like I am totally right how can that be as I dont feel comfortable. Is that strange?
Well the quality of infalibility I dislike in others manifests in me which shows how careful one must be and trust no one particulary ones self.

I suspect the scriptures would be interesting but I dont need them to be who I want to be.

As to tactics I find being respectful works you may notice I back down if I think I have hurt someone when I have been ranting.

I will play "the wounded bird" at times if I become manipulative but that is punishment for those who think they have found an easy mark.

There is nothing wrong with compliments it is a little gift one can give others that can be beneficial. Its nice to make people feel better about themselves.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

How do you think you have won this debate?

Didn't claim to have won, just that I am just dismantling the assertions you're making, leaving you back at square one.

God is by definition, supernatural - beyond/outside/above nature (whatever word makes you comfortable).

 

[Sarkus]

Actually we went through some of this on another thread, I think. The so-called "laws" of nature are, for the most part, approximations put forward by certain human beings and accordingly named after them. For example Newton's Laws of Motion, or Lenz's Law, Kepler's Laws or Raoult's Law, or Boyle's Law. In my opinion the term "law" is unfortunate, as it gives rise to the idea of a lawmaker, when no such entity is implied. And I say "approximations" quite deliberately, as in many cases the "laws" are only strictly obeyed by idealised forms of matter, such as ideal gases or whatever - in other words they are not strictly obeyed by real matter at all.

I wasn't party to that thread, but I would have added that this merely highlights the difference between the Laws as we understand them and the objective laws that we are striving to understand. It is clear in this thread and the way the language has been used (at least in this part of the discussion) that the reference is to the objective underlying laws.

Sure, when we talk about Someone's Law that is an approximation by some person, it is our understanding. But here we are talking about the absolute laws. The objective ones. The ones we try to approximate through our understanding.

I would therefore prefer to say that these "laws" are human expressions, encapsulating the order we see in nature.

In other discussions perhaps I would to, especially if referring to specific ones, but then I would capitalise them as Laws (as you have done above).
This is why context is important, to be able to judge how a word or phrase is being used, and to use it accordingly, not to be deliberately obtuse and argue a different understanding entirely with the sole purpose of evading the argument. And to reiterate, here we have not been talking about specific Laws but the objective laws.

As for the term "law" being unfortunate, I fully agree, and it would be a rather juvenile argument to equivocate in such a way. Hopefully we are better than that,

 

[Sarkus]

Look at the responses here. No one wants to go into scriptures at all...

This is a thread about proof of God, and any proof of God that relies on the scriptures needs to show the truth of the scriptures, otherwise your proof is merely reliant upon the veracity of the scriptures, and it shoves the issue to proving the scriptures are true.
What exists within the scriptures that can prove God to exist? If it just merely a description then all you need do is set out what that description is. Instead you belabour the point about how we need to understand God, how the scriptures are the best source (being divinely inspired etc) and that until we understand God we can not possibly search for proof of God. And yet you don't see that as circular reasoning. Nor do you do anything to actually develop that understanding in a manner that is not similarly circular.

I agree with you. I have never felt mortal....

If I've understood what he said correctly, i really don't think you do agree with him, to be honest, as I think you have misunderstood him. He does feel mortal. But he, just like many of us, has no fear of death. Of the pain of dying, perhaps, but not of death.

So you see we can communicate at a point, where we can discuss scripture without arguing like enemies. I wish I could get that through to Sarkus.

It's quite simple, Jan: start respecting other people, not treat them like the fools you think them to be and step down from the pedestal you put yourself on. Don't deliberately evade, obfuscate, equivocate, launch into any number of logical fallacies that you are prone to (including the apparent deliberate misunderstanding of words within the context they're used) and actually try to understand the other person's perspective rather than accuse them of such things as "knowing God exists but simply denying it".

And you can discuss scripture all you want, but you need to start from the understanding that the other person may not hold them to be the sacred texts that you do. You have proven unable to do that thus far.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Didn't claim to have won, just that I am just dismantling the assertions you're making, leaving you back at square one.

God is by definition, supernatural - beyond/outside/above nature (whatever word makes you comfortable).

But cannot be described as being beyond the law of nature, lest we know the extent of the laws of nature, which we don't.
Yep. I'm comfortable with that.

Jan.

 

[exchemist]

I wasn't party to that thread, but I would have added that this merely highlights the difference between the Laws as we understand them and the objective laws that we are striving to understand. It is clear in this thread and the way the language has been used (at least in this part of the discussion) that the reference is to the objective underlying laws.

Sure, when we talk about Someone's Law that is an approximation by some person, it is our understanding. But here we are talking about the absolute laws. The objective ones. The ones we try to approximate through our understanding.
In other discussions perhaps I would to, especially if referring to specific ones, but then I would capitalise them as Laws (as you have done above).
This is why context is important, to be able to judge how a word or phrase is being used, and to use it accordingly, not to be deliberately obtuse and argue a different understanding entirely with the sole purpose of evading the argument. And to reiterate, here we have not been talking about specific Laws but the objective laws.

As for the term "law" being unfortunate, I fully agree, and it would be a rather juvenile argument to equivocate in such a way. Hopefully we are better than that,

Indeed,we agree, I think. In fact I only interjected because it seemed to me that the human and often approximate nature of these "laws" gives us even more reason not to delude ourselves that they imply a "lawmaker". What you are describing as the absolute laws is what I prefer to call the underlying order (order being in my view a term less likely to imply by accident a lawmaker).

Now it is true that many religious people, including scientists, find that the beauty they see in this order in the universe suggests to them a Divinity. I have often thought so myself at various periods of my life. But that is a purely subjective feeling and not susceptible to any hard (i.e. objective) evidence, let alone proof.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is a thread about proof of God, and any proof of God that relies on the scriptures needs to show the truth of the scriptures, otherwise your proof is merely reliant upon the veracity of the scriptures, and it shoves the issue to proving the scriptures are true.

How do you know?

What exists within the scriptures that can prove God to exist?

Who said I am using scripture to prove that God exists?
The question is: What is God?

Instead you belabour the point about how we need to understand God, how the scriptures are the best source (being divinely inspired etc) and that until we understand God we can not possibly search for proof of God. And yet you don't see that as circular reasoning. Nor do you do anything to actually develop that understanding in a manner that is not similarly circular.

Then why don't you leave it alone.
It's obviously way below you.

If I've understood what he said correctly, i really don't think you do agree with him, to be honest, as I think you have misunderstood him. He does feel mortal. But he, just like many of us, has no fear of death. Of the pain of dying, perhaps, but not of death.

Then it seems we have a different understanding of it. Yes?

It's quite simple, Jan: start respecting other people, not treat them like the fools you think them to be and step down from the pedestal you put yourself on.

I do respect people Sarkus, and you would do fine to stop with the constant accusations. Just put me on ignore if you don't want to talk. But stop with all the false accusations.

And you can discuss scripture all you want, but you need to start from the understanding that the other person may not hold them to be the sacred texts that you do. You have proven unable to do that thus far.

One does not need to hold them in any regard, one only needs to comprehend what is written. The fact that you think that it matters whether one holds them as sacred, says heaps.

I don't think there is any future in us discussing, you're way too prejudice and proud to get back to any kind of civil conversation. And it is for that reason I'm going to put you on ignore.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The scriptures you speak of have existed for less than 2000 years.

And which scriptures do I speak of?

All primitive people from: "time immemorial" have had more than half dozen gods (The river god, the rain god, the god of the hunt, god of their sacred places, usually a mountain, etc.) Only the Jews (in western culture - I don't know much about the others) have believed in the existence of one god, and for only about 5,000 years, much less than "time immemorial."

What you fail to understand is that, gods represent different aspects of God. A good analogy is the government. The President is the head, but he has different departments to carry out his business. You'll find even in the biggest polytheistic society to day, the Hindus, believe in God, despite believing in demi-gods.

Hold what ever POV you like, but don't misrepresent history.

Hold whatever POV you like, but don't misrepresent scripture.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am fortunate I learnt early that to learn I could observe others and not stumble where they had fallen. One learns just as well from the mistakes of others. All my experiences good or bad I see as positive. I have no guilt or regret because I have always done the best I could and not taken anyone down. I have been humble in victory and become friends with those I have beaten. I respect others and so I respect myself.

I take my hat of to you sir, that is quite a résumé.

I dont know. They are my arms and legs but cut them off and I am still here and you could cut away a lot and I would still be here.

Also, who did you say they belonged to? My, me?
Who is me?

Well the quality of infalibility I dislike in others manifests in me which shows how careful one must be and trust no one particulary ones self.

There's that me again. I know folk are going to start banging on about grammar. But that really is no reason to describe yourself as me.

I suspect the scriptures would be interesting but I dont need them to be who I want to be.

That is so honest.
But what if, who you want to be, is not in your self interest?

As to tactics I find being respectful works you may notice I back down if I think I have hurt someone when I have been ranting.

You don't have to back down with me. If you have some truth, and you think it will hurt my feelings, then that's my problem. It is respectful to be truthful.

There is nothing wrong with compliments it is a little gift one can give others that can be beneficial. Its nice to make people feel better about themselves.

I get it, and I do appreciate them. It just makes it hard to argue with you.
If we are being honest, then we will not think badly if we say something that goes against the others belief. It is when people can do nothing but level insult after insult, for no reason other than you do not think like them, it becomes disrespectful.

jan.

 

[exchemist]

This is a thread about proof of God, and any proof of God that relies on the scriptures needs to show the truth of the scriptures, otherwise your proof is merely reliant upon the veracity of the scriptures, and it shoves the issue to proving the scriptures are true.
What exists within the scriptures that can prove God to exist? If it just merely a description then all you need do is set out what that description is. Instead you belabour the point about how we need to understand God, how the scriptures are the best source (being divinely inspired etc) and that until we understand God we can not possibly search for proof of God. And yet you don't see that as circular reasoning. Nor do you do anything to actually develop that understanding in a manner that is not similarly circular.

..[snip]....

And you can discuss scripture all you want, but you need to start from the understanding that the other person may not hold them to be the sacred texts that you do. You have proven unable to do that thus far.

Yes indeed. Sadly, I think you have nailed it here. I think our friend was originally hoping to "prove" the existence of God by reference to scriptures. He has advanced no argument other than scripture, so far as I can see. He has closed his mind entirely to the logical possibility that scriptures were simply the writings of imaginative men. If they are, then - POOF! - he has none of the evidence for God that he is relying on. And he has no other ideas, apparently. So all we get is wriggling, word games and outbreaks of abuse.