Proof there is a God

[Xelasnave.1947]

You think it's possible to disprove God at all?
Lets see your proof, got any?

What do you believe God to be, we can not proceed unless we develop a view of God.
You call for proof and hint that there is no proof and specifically that we have no proof.
What is proof?
What kind of proof would satisfy you?
Why is it important to ask what we think.
Who are you addressing.
Why wont you answer my questions.

Alex

 

[exchemist]

You think it's possible to disprove God at all?
Lets see your proof, got any?

Of course not, that's the point. God's existence, famously, can be neither proven nor disproven. The most that science can say is that there is no objective evidence for God. But that is not proof, though for people with a physicalist outlook, it is enough for them to say they do not believe God exists.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What do you believe God to be, we can not proceed unless we develop a view of God.

God is the creator and sustainer of the universe,

You call for proof and hint that there is no proof and specifically that we have no proof.
What is proof?

Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition

What kind of proof would satisfy you?

There's only one kind of proof.
Read above.

Why is it important to ask what we think.

Then we can know where you're coning from.

Who are you addressing.
Why wont you answer my questions.

Alex.

Which questions?

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Now we should not be too harse with Jan... And Jan I am talking in recognition that you are in the room.
I find Jans chatter nice and the points she makes thought provocing.
Jan provides us with sport.
Jan offers us insite into the mind of an individual with curious needs to establish self esteme.
Jan offers us an understanding of the working of a mind consumed by strange imaginings that we dont understand.
Jan shows it is possible to present as inteligent and still embrace ancient superstition.
Jan demonstrates proficency in holding an audience and monopolising their attention with impressive demonstrations of something.
Jan offers us good reason to avoid involvement in religion.
I have made the above list like Jan so its easier to quote line by line so you have something to discuss.
Now as a bonus a list of questions.
Do you like beards?
Do you like my beard?
Do you have a beard?
Have you ever had a beard?
Do you live alone?
Do you live in a house or a flat?
Do you own your home or do you rent it?
Do you drive?
Do you have a pet?
Do you work full time?
Do you suffer from any health problems?
Where do you go for holidays?
Do you enjoy cooking?
What is your favorite food?
Should dogs wear pants?
Do you like jam?
Would you save a child at the risk of your own life?
Do you like sports?
Should cars go electric?
Do you sleep with a light on?
What is your favorite outfit?

I ask these questions so I can understand more about you and pass my time getting my mind off my personal suffering so please play along you can help me please help me.
Goto go the paint is dry.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sorry Jan missed your last post I will try to manage a responce
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Now we should not be too harse with Jan... And Jan I am talking in recognition that you are in the room.
I find Jans chatter nice and the points she makes thought provocing.
Jan provides us with sport.
Jan offers us insite into the mind of an individual with curious needs to establish self esteme.
Jan offers us an understanding of the working of a mind consumed by strange imaginings that we dont understand.
Jan shows it is possible to present as inteligent and still embrace ancient superstition.
Jan demonstrates proficency in holding an audience and monopolising their attention with impressive demonstrations of something.
Jan offers us good reason to avoid involvement in religion.
I have made the above list like Jan so its easier to quote line by line so you have something to discuss.
Now as a bonus a list of questions.
Do you like beards?
Do you like my beard?
Do you have a beard?
Have you ever had a beard?
Do you live alone?
Do you live in a house or a flat?
Do you own your home or do you rent it?
Do you drive?
Do you have a pet?
Do you work full time?
Do you suffer from any health problems?
Where do you go for holidays?
Do you enjoy cooking?
What is your favorite food?
Should dogs wear pants?
Do you like jam?
Would you save a child at the risk of your own life?
Do you like sports?
Should cars go electric?
Do you sleep with a light on?
What is your favorite outfit?

I ask these questions so I can understand more about you and pass my time getting my mind off my personal suffering so please play along you can help me please help me.
Goto go the paint is dry.
Alex

I have to hand it to you Alex.
That's brilliant. It's way out there,
I kind of sensed a slight exaggeration or two. But it's inventive.
I like it.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

I didn't ask for your impression. I've already given a suitable definition of God (impression free).

“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.”

If you keep avoiding to give a description/definition, in this thread, I can only assume you are in denial.

Thank you for the definition was it something you thought up or did it come from a scripture.

http://www.harekrishna.com/col/books/RP/ISO/iso-inv.html

It's a rather tendentious personal-theistic translation of the opening of the Iso Upanishad by Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Notice how 'complete whole' becomes 'personality of Godhead' and how English 'He' and 'Him' pronouns are introduced that don't seem to be present in the Sanskrit.

So I suspect that the swami's own personal-theistic impressions have been introduced into his translation of what may in other contexts be a more impersonal and even philosophical passage.

Prabhupada's religious purpose was to teach bhakti, religious devotion and piety most typically directed towards a personal object, whether a/the Deity (imagined as a person) or the person of the Guru.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

God is the creator and sustainer of the universe,



Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition



There's only one kind of proof.
Read above.



Then we can know where you're coning from.



Alex.

Which questions?

Jan.

Jan my questions were not addressed to you you may have broken some rule of forum behaviour.
Nevertheless you did answer a few questions.
I must think this thru.
If I take a position opposite to the one I hold then ask questions about someone else post I can get some direct replies.
I think I get it.. I just not good at this.. Is this like politics.
Is religion like politics?
Should dogs wear pants?
Hang on I will ask someone else then you answer.
I think I am ready for conversion as my mind is clearly turning to mush.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have to hand it to you Alex.
That's brilliant. It's way out there,
I kind of sensed a slight exaggeration or two. But it's inventive.
I like it.

jan.

Please Jan answer the questions.
At least deal with the most important first and I really need an answer on this...
Should dogs wear pants?
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan my questions were not addressed to you you may have broken some rule of forum behaviour.

Sounds like you hope I've broken some rules of forum behaviour.

At least deal with the most important first and I really need an answer on this...
Should dogs wear pants?

Nah!

jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Prabhupada's religious purpose was to teach bhakti, religious devotion and piety most typically directed towards a personal object, whether a/the Deity (imagined as a person) or the person of the Guru.

His purpose and the purpose behind all these phonies is to get a feed using the only talent they have of exchanging BS for cash.
They prey upon the poor fools who have been brainwashed from birth to believe their poverty is wonderful and what little they have should go to feed social parisites.
Gurus are the sons of motherless goats.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Sounds like you hope I've broken some rules of forum behaviour.

Wrong. I take no pleasure in seeing others make mistakes nor do I enjoy witnessing their punishement.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Dogs should wear pants I am surprised you are so casual upon this issue Jan.

You are doing well answering questions like you have done it before.

Should humans wear pants if dogs dont have to... And you say there is a God.. Where is the justice.
If a dog runs down the street with no pants folk just say he should be on a lead.. Well you put on a lead and run down the street with no pants and you will get locked up. Its not right but it proves there is no God, well not one for humans but the dam dogs maybe cause look at what they get away with.
And cats same thing no pants and I cant comment upon their various acts of indecency but if you did that in public... Well you dont see any cats in prison do you.. Do you visit anyone in prison Jan I hope they are not thete for running sround with no pants and wearing a dog collar.

Anyways lets move past the dog question and get back to the list of questions.
I wanted to give you an easy list so you could answer all of the questions and then say to these folk who sccuse you of svoiding questions.. Nah I answer questions look how I answered all the questions in Alexs list..
Mind you you were wishy wahy on the dog and pants question perhaps you need to give reasons why dogs dont have to wear pants.
I dont know what do you think mmm I would give a reason.
So next question your answer please.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan's game is a weird caricature of Socrates' method in the Meno, keep poking and prodding and asking questions while constantly hinting that there's something important that Jan wants other people to realize for themselves, but never getting any closer to revealing precisely what it is. That way Jan gets to pose as the wise teacher, the guru even, without ever needing to have anything to teach.

No no no no er yes.

Jan is predictable and fallible follows a patten and we enjoy it.
It a cat and mouse thing I know I would lose interest once the mouse is dead.
I know you are in the room Jan and you have to know its ok because we are talking about you, we know its all about you, and I have no problems about that.
I would never say something behind your back that I would not say to your face.
Jan has a problem we all agree upon that but lets help by being supportive and treat her like one of the boys.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Write4U,
Doesn't this mean the universe contains information that cannot be read without comprehension ability.

Yes, of course. Comprehension is not required for electro/magnetic interactions, they are caused by natural different values of energetic charges, or chemical interactions, which are are caused by natural compatibilities.

What, other than a mind can write information?

To our knowledge only man can "write" with human symbolic language. But make no mistake, many animals can convey information, by various other means. A simple example, a wolf *marks* his territory by *scent*. What is he communicating when pissing on a rock at the boundary of his territory?

If it is humanly impossible to even comprehend a single word, and the information is written in the universe for us to comprehend, then how could we have invented mathematics?

There is no script of the mathematical functions in the universe. They are inherent in the values and equations, which we have observed and symbolized in human language.

It would mean that the information was not meant for human comprehension, and as such we would be perfectly happy in our natural ignorant state of being. Do you see lions and tigers trying to comprehend the universe?

Correct, Lions and tigers are perfectly happy NOT knowing human symbolic language. But they do communicate by other means.
And if you were to look at the links I provided, you will find that all mathematicians feel they are discovering the mathematical functions of the universe, not because it was communicated to humans, but by observing the way the universe functions and translating this "information" into human symbolic language. The Bible tries to do that, but fails in almost every detail, such as 6 day creation. And that is perfectly understandable as 5000 years ago we had no idea of chemistry and electro/magnetic functions, knowledge which is essential to understand how the universe functions.

By the way, you can ponder on the scriptures also being information from the source. Remember scriptures have only been written down in the last 3.5 thousand years or so (by so called experts).

But were based on limited knowledge, so the term "so called experts" is incorrect. They saw miraculous events and concluded that these events were caused by gods.

But they have been passed down aurally from time immemorial. Which is why every society has an notion of God (monotheist God), even the animist aboriginal tribes. It is innate. Mate.

Oh, if that last declaration refers to chess, I'll play a chess game with you any time.

But the very fact that they were passed on orally is the very reason why scripture derived from such oral traditions are all different, whereas science uses the single language of mathematics to accurately and consistently describe actual universal functions.

But I didn't though. I know the truth of the matter. You don't.

You are a prophet?

Simply accepting the situation how you see fit, despite the truth, is probably what got you in the denying God business.

Now that's a twist, the more we learn about the implacable mathematical functions, the further we get from the truth? The contrary is true, Jan. That's why, finally and much too late scriptural experts had to admit that evolution is true and 6 day creation was a false assumption by ignorant minds.

Could humans and animals exist without numbers?
Even primitive tribes have their unique ways of using numbers.
What make you think man invented them?

Consider how the first communication of numbers 60,000 years ago was done, it was most certainly not by numbers.

I don't need to do anything but withstand the insults and false accusations. Eventually you break. The essence has to come through.

I understand the essence and that is why I reject a scriptural God as a source for science.
Scripture has other values, but they are not usable to explain the mathematical function of the universe.

You can call it what you like mate. It is within the capability of God.

No, it is the natural capability (potential) of the universe. God, as a mindful entity is not relevant.

You should read some vedic literature, in all seriousness. You'd see what I mean.

I have and none of it explains the true nature of the universe, except by analogy.

Your movie is not playable in my area

So, you are lacking knowledge and speak from ignorance. Just like they did before the Scientific Method was developed.

That's not what I meant. The essence never changes.
Calling God, mathematics, is still God with a name of your choosing

. Ok, how about the FSM is the mindful essence of the Universe? Would you accept that "Word"?

Science can't explain God.

Scripture does not explain Science.

Well isn't that convenient. Consciousness can arise out of gross matter. No explanation just, it does because if it didn't we wouldn't be here (I suspect). jan.

Yes, consciousness can arise from gross matter, but it is not required. There are millions of species (including precursors) who do/did just fine without the ability for abstract thought until homo sapiens sapiens (humans) evolved from one of these species.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Mate is an Australian thing.
Using it can be be friendly or aggressive.
"good on you mate"..friendly.
"have you got that.mate"very aggressive step back a fist will follow.

Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't recall saying you haven't.
Have you?

Jan.

Have I what?

 

[Jan Ardena]

But were based on limited knowledge, so the term "so called experts" is incorrect. They saw miraculous events and concluded that these events were caused by gods.

I meant modern day so called experts.
Some claim that the earliest known scriptures are about 3.5 thousand years old.

They saw miraculous events and concluded that these events were caused by gods.

You see this is why I believew e should take scriptures a little more seriously.
There is no record of people seeing something miraculous, and inventing a god to explain it. Yet this figures in your world view as a fact.

Oh, if that last declaration refers to chess, I'll play a chess game with you any time.

You'll most likely kick my ass.

But the very fact that they were passed on orally is the very reason why scripture derived from such oral traditions are all different, whereas science uses the single language of mathematics to accurately and consistently describe actual universal functions.

That's one way of looking at it.
Another is to consider the possibility that humans were more advanced in those days, and we're were capable of remembering anything they chose to, in perfect detail, over the course of their very long lives.

You are a prophet?

No, but I do know my own intentions, better than you do.

Now that's a twist, the more we learn about the implacable mathematical functions, the further we get from the truth?

That would be questionable, if that is what I meant.

The contrary is true, Jan. That's why, finally and much too late scriptural experts had to admit that evolution is true and 6 day creation was a false assumption by ignorant minds.

I don't see how this is relevant to what I posted.

Consider how the first communication of numbers 60,000 years ago was done, it was most certainly not by numbers.

Why 60,000 years ago?

I understand the essence and that is why I reject a scriptural God as a source for science.
Scripture has other values, but they are not usable to explain the mathematical function of the universe.

Why would you even look at scriptures like that?
Modern science is about understanding the objective, material world. Scriptures relates to the spiritual, eternal aspect of man.
It's great to know how the universe functions, but it is a temporary satisfaction.

No, it is the natural capability (potential) of the universe. God, as a mindful entity is not relevant.

What criteria did you use to conclude that God, as a mindful entity is not relevant?

Using the human being as a universe, and the personality as God. It could be said by minute organism living in and upon the body, that the body functions perfectly, no need for intelligence. And could also be argued that the personality is the reason the body functions precisely the way it does.
Who would be correct?

I have and none of it explains the true nature of the universe, except by analogy.

And from that analogy, good intelligence can decode what is being said, and has done.

So, you are lacking knowledge and speak from ignorance. Just like they did before the Scientific Method was developed.

I meant when I tried to play the video, a notice came up saying it could not be played in may area.

You should try to control your impulses.

Ok, how about the FSM is the mindful essence of the Universe? Would you accept that "Word"?

What I accept is of no consequence.
If you are talking about a specific set of characteristics (like the definition I gave you), then it can only be ascribed to God, FSM, Mr. Teapot Head, etc....
The characteristics is what is important. Which is why atheists don't like to define God (unless it is derogatory), because it means they have to assign specific characteristics, which means they accept that is what God is (regardless of belief or lack of).

Scripture does not explain Science.

Scripture explains the ultimate science.

Yes, consciousness can arise from gross matter, but it is not required. There are millions of species (including precursors) who do/did just fine without the ability for abstract thought until homo sapiens sapiens (humans) evolved from one of these species.

And you know this... how?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Have I what?

Addressed all my posts.

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Some claim that the earliest known scriptures are about 3.5 thousand years old.

What does age have to do with it?
Are you appealing to antiquity?
Is this another "it has survived as an idea this long therefore it must be right!" argument?

There is no record of people seeing something miraculous, and inventing a god to explain it. Yet this figures in your world view as a fact.

I consider it rational to assume that by the time written records began the notion of a god to explain anything miraculous occurring had already taken foot.
So they didn't need to invent one as thof on option was already there.
Why reinvent the wheel?

Another is to consider the possibility that humans were more advanced in those days, and we're were capable of remembering anything they chose to, in perfect detail, over the course of their very long lives.

And there is evidence of this possibility... where?
Why would it be more rational to conclude this possibility rather than that offered by Write4U?
And how long are you considering to be "very long lives"?

Modern science is about understanding the objective, material world. Scriptures relates to the spiritual, eternal aspect of man.

Why do you think man has a spiritual or eternal aspect?

Using the human being as a universe, and the personality as God. It could be said by minute organism living in and upon the body, that the body functions perfectly, no need for intelligence. And could also be argued that the personality is the reason the body functions precisely the way it does.
Who would be correct?

Who indeed.
You have proof that you are?

And from that analogy, good intelligence can decode what is being said, and has done.

So you have been led to believe.

The characteristics is what is important. Which is why atheists don't like to define God (unless it is derogatory), because it means they have to assign specific characteristics, which means they accept that is what God is (regardless of belief or lack of).

True, if an atheist is going to go as far as claim that God does not exist then they should define that which they think does not exist.
Otherwise they would have to accept that that is what the concept of God is, but they could only accept that that is what God actually is once they are convinced of that God's existence.
Otherwise you head down the argument akin to "God is the cause of existence, we exist, therefore God exists."
I'm hoping we don't need to take you step by step through that argument as to why it is rather meaningless, albeit valid.

Scripture explains the ultimate science.

Which is?
And being a science, of course there is repeatable evidence for it?

And you know this... how?

The same question you seem to avoid answering, isn't it?