Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

even if a God existed (somehow) then it is pretty obvious that he doesn't care about us.

Why? You're here expressing yourself.
If God did exist, as you pondered, then he cares enough to give you the opportunity to express your lack of belief in Him.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I’ve been on my own faith exploration and have resumed faith in a higher power,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you first arrived here the last time, you had faith. Unfortunately you were eventually talked down from it, becoming an atheist.

I hope you don't get swayed.this time.

Jan.

 

[Baldeee]

I didn't say that ancient doesn't contribute to veracity. I said amazing doesn't equal true.

So does ancient = true, from your perspective?

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't say that ancient doesn't contribute to veracity. I said amazing doesn't equal true.
I mentioned nothing about authority.

OK, so we're agreed. It's an arbitrary definition. If not, show how it is not.

Plus you still haven't shown different definitions of God.

Is there a need? Are you contesting that there aren't?

 

[Write4U]

But there would be nothing wrong in him having faith that one day that method will be able to 'prove God'.
Note that there is no evidence that the scientific method can prove God, but his faith isn't based on no evidence. It is based on hope.

Hebrews 11:1,
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. jan.

That quote proves that theism (faith in an mindful God) does not qualify as a scientific discipline.

It is exactly the opposite of the scientific method, which demands evidence of verifiable observable things. Whereas we do have *theoretical science*, any proposition such as the above biblical quote cannot ever be considered Truth, until the hypothesis has been tested and falsified.
From your inferences (including your statement that I actually believe in your God), the God you are describing is not "mindful", but merely a mathematical process, which functions as it must by natural mathematical laws.

 

[Write4U]

Why? They are ancient scriptures.

Name some let's see how much they differ.

Of course there's no objective phenomena to verify God's existence.
If there was, it would be questionable as to whether it was God.

You just have to find another way to gain knowledge. jan.

Well, this is an entirely different POV regarding *logic*. Let me unpack this. "If you can prove something does in fact exist, it is not the thing you have just proven to exist. OTOH, if you cannot prove that something exists, it must in fact exist. Give it a break, jan.

And what is the other way to gain knowledge? Prayer, Hope, Wishful thinking? Or just shouting "Praise the lord". This is becoming ridiculous.

Evolution doesn't exist and if it does it is God's will?
You may want to look up the term *gene drive*. I have a wonderful clip explaining how science is on the verge of being able to create entirely new species, but as you are unable to follow * recorded lectures*, Ill just post this for others to watch this fascinating *cutting edge* research in creating entirely new species. Take note of this term "Gene Drive"

http://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_kahn_gene_editing_can_now_change_an_entire_species_forever?

 

[Write4U]

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

Yes , that era where diseases were demons to be exorcised.

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.

That's just false. The Bible is full of miracles.

You'll most likely kick my ass.

Yes, and thereby show my superior intellect. Just as you are trying to do here on this forum. A new savior no less, are you going to save the world?

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.

In contradiction to your proposition of Modern experts.

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

Yes, you see yourself as a purveyor of Truth, but without evidence. Just like the Bible.

Write4U said: ↑
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.

It's what you said and I am questioning it.

Write4U said: ↑
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.

It is relevant because you deny evolution, showing your hubris.

Why 60,000 years ago?

That was the time man became a skilled tool maker and started using paints to depict what they observed.

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.

Until God decides that he is displeased by man and creates Global Warming disasters, wiping out all the sinners on earth and saving only the pius.

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

Mathematical functions do not require mindfulness.

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.

Mindlessly functional?

And could also be argued that the personality is the reason the body functions precisely the way it does. Who would be correct?

Simple Definition of personality

• : the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people

  A multiverse of individual Gods?

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

Yes, and good intelligence has decoded the bible and found it wanting in Truth.

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

Ah, you don't have access to scientific information?
Just have a bible on the shelf?

You should try to control your impulses.

You should control your propensity for uttering rubbish.

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).

You mean our God-given ability to think critically?

Scripture explains the ultimate science.

It does not explain anything scientific (with some exceptions), it is totally based on faith in mythology.

Write4U said: ↑
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.

From reading and carefully analyzing the scientific data (which you have no access to).[/quote][/quote]

 

[wegs]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you first arrived here the last time, you had faith. Unfortunately you were eventually talked down from it, becoming an atheist.

I hope you don't get swayed.this time.

Jan.

You are right, probably more agnostic than atheist, but good memory Jan.
You were never swayed. I admire that.

 

[wegs]

Wegs I think you are talking about what I would term subjective evidence, as opposed to the objective (independently reproducible) evidence that is relied on in science. It is subjective because it touches something in some individuals that gives it appeal. I suspect that "tangible" to most people rather tends to imply the latter rather than the former.

That is correct.

Personally I see very little value in examining religious writings using the methods of science. One might as well try to apply science to Bleak House or Hamlet. It seems to me that discovering what they have to offer humanity is best discovered by applying the methods of literature and theology.

Putting it also another way, it is somewhat futile to try to ''prove'' one's belief system to another person, no matter what that belief system may be. At best, if a person is religious or follows a particular set of spiritual beliefs, such a person can share those thoughts, experiences, etc but because faith is largely a personal thing, it will be an effort in futility to try to prove that those beliefs are objectively true. (even if the person believing them thinks them to be objectively true) So in so many words, agree with your post.

 

[wegs]

What do math equations have to do with the Bible? How about things like Noah's Ark? Adam and Eve?

Not all of the Bible, if we're talking about the Bible specifically, is necessary to take literally. (I never was and never will be a fundie) lol

Is it ever appropropriate not to be skeptical when it comes to extraordinary claims?
If yes, I have a huge plot of land in Florida to sell you, cheap.

If the person cares what the skeptic thinks....

 

[DaveC426913]

Not all of the Bible, if we're talking about the Bible specifically, is necessary to take literally. (I never was and never will be a fundie) lol

Your initial argment was that there was tangible evidence, in the Bible, Torah or Qur'an, that cannot be scientifically examined.

I think that qualifies as an oxymoron. If something is tangible, then it can be examined scientifically.

If the person cares what the skeptic thinks....

This is a science forum; skepticism is the operative process. If you're looking for possibilities, there's a fiction-writing forum next door.

 

[wegs]

Your initial argment was that there was tangible evidence, in the Bible, Torah or Qur'an, that cannot be scientifically examined.

I think that qualifies as an oxymoron. If something is tangible, then it can be examined scientifically.

It can be, anything can be. From an atheist/agnostic view, it will always have a skeptic's spin though, and the process will not be entirely...um, fair.

This is a science forum; skepticism is the operative process. If you're looking for possibilities, there's a fiction-writing forum next door.

But this is the religion section, and there's always possibilities. You don't know everything, you know.

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't know everything, you know.

I haven't been making any claims about knowing; I have simply been asking for clarification on your stance.

 

[river]

Oh there is a " god " so to speak but NONE OF YOU bother to look into the History ; behind the religion.

When you have read ; ancient history ; 10000 yrs. ago and back even further , then and only then ; will you see the bigger picture ; then we will see the necessity of this thread; in the near future.

river

 

[river]

Oh there is a " god " so to speak but NONE OF YOU bother to look into the History ; behind the religion.

When you have read ; ancient history ; 10000 yrs. ago and back even further , then and only then ; will you see the bigger picture ; then we will see the necessity of this thread; in the near future.

river

Actually it's the " non- necessity " of this thread ; that I'm getting at here.

 

[river]

Oh there is a " god " so to speak but NONE OF YOU bother to look into the History ; behind the religion.

When you have read ; ancient history ; 10000 yrs. ago and back even further , then and only then ; will you see the bigger picture ; then we will see the necessity of this thread; in the near future.

river

Actually it's the " non-necessity " of this thread is what I mean.

 

[Sarkus]

We're all ears, river. Please feel free to reveal what it is you think is behind the religion, what information there is from 10,000+ years ago that l ads you to conclude that there is a God (so to speak)?

 

[Kittamaru]

The thing that confuses me is the thought that "science" and "religion" have to be mutually exclusive... that doesn't add up. What is there to prevent religious understanding from evolving and growing, much the same way science does... and by that, I mean look at some of the usual arguments against religion, such as the "stoning" thing. Such is an example of the times that the text was written. Isn't it simply appropriate to continue to adapt as the times change?

After all... adapt, or get left behind.

 

[Write4U]

I have really thought about why so many people believe in a mindful God.
I have made my case, but would like to try and explain this phenomenon.

jan seems to associate God with *thought* (mindful). Let's assume that a creative force lies within the mind of every human (and possibly to a lesser degree in other species). Let's call this creative force *God*.

Every human thinks a little different, thus their personal God must also be a little different, which means there are as many different gods as there are humans, each person has his/her own god. Take them all together and we arrive at a generality of a single God, to represent *Thought* and *Mindfulness* (in all human beings).

But here is where the argument for a single Universal mindful God fails.

Other than using the word God to indicate a unique quality of human sentience, actually there would be many lesser gods, such as the Muses, Virtues, Sins....

The Muses /ˈmjuːzᵻz/ (Ancient Greek: Μοῦσαι Mousai; perhaps from the o-grade of the Proto-Indo-European root *men- "think")[1] in Greek mythology are the goddesses of the inspiration of literature, science, and the arts. They were considered the source of the knowledge embodied in the poetry, song-lyrics, and myths that were related orally for centuries in these ancient cultures. They were later adopted by the Romans as a part of their pantheon

People who's mind serve the same muse tend to congregate, which reinforces the power of the Muse.
Thus there is a hierarchical philosophical order from:
a) The word God (the Creator of Thought), the sum of all thoughts in humans
b) All other words we have for the lesser gods are the specific creative thought processes in a specific area of thought. Arts, Sciences, etc.
c) Gods (demons) which control one or more minds. Gods of war, Gods of Love, etc
d) There are as many gods as there are sapient beings, who believe in a god and not the mathematics.

IMO, such a hierarchical order of Thought forms could be defended in areas of human
psychology, but it does not extend beyond the human realm.

Universal Potential created human reality, but by a purely implacably logical,
mathematically probabilistic, function, which is independent of mindful thought, because it needs not be sentient in and of itself.

Humans are little gods, but we are but a speck in the grander scheme of an folding and unfolding of universal spacetime. An inevitable mathematical expression of an fractal geometric condition and function. CDT (causal dynamical triangulation)[/quote]

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes , that era where d

It does not explain anything scientific (with some exceptions), it is totally based on faith in mythology.

It does not explain anything scientific (with some exceptions), it is totally based on faith in mythology.

iseases were demons to be exorcised.

Maybe you should look up the Sushruta Samita, that's at least 3000 years old.

That's just false. The Bible is full of miracles.

So what?

Yes, and thereby show my superior intellect.

And yet you can't see that you believe in God.

Just as you are trying to do here on this forum. A new savior no less, are you going to save the world?

So you're buying into the character assination?
Pity you don't currently have the intelligence to back up that intellect.

In contradiction to your proposition of Modern experts.

How is that a contradiction?

It's what you said and I am questioning it.

No you've misinterpreted it, and continue to use your misinterpretation as though it was what I meant.

You mean our God-given ability to think critically?

'God' being the operative word, for you, or so that you don't burst anymore blood vessels, you can call it mathematics.

It does not explain anything scientific (with some exceptions), it is totally based on faith in mythology.

Think of any scientific or technological discovery from anytime, or think of all the discoveries, not only of science, but of anything, that is yet to come.
Now think if there are no (specifically) human beings to discover these things. I'm sure you'll agree that there will be no discovery.
So what is this human being that has this ability? That's the type of scientific information you will find in scriptures.

From reading and carefully analyzing the scientific data

So you know (for a fact ) that consciousness arises out of gross matter, through reading books, analyzing scientific data?
Don't be stupid.

jan.