Proof there is a God

[Jan Ardena]

Please go ahead make your point but please stay on topic and address the op.

I see God as the number 1.
Without 1, there is no 2, 3, and so on.
There are no halves, quarters, thirds and so on.

After all, all of the atheists arguments boil down to a severe personality problem.

We've already discussed this.

I have seen so many people who are atheists have absolutely no reason to believe there is no God, in public.

I would drop the ''absolutely''.
The only reason you have mustered so far, is that you won't believe in mythical made up character, or words to that effect.
But you cannot explain how you know God is such.

So this is a thread about the equations primarily although I feel we are going to discuss the simples.

Just so you know, it is not just about the equations.

jan.

 

[PhysBang]

It's not just a matter of accepting my definition. My definition doesn't matter, especially if I'm leaving presupposition at the door.

This is a standard, and grossly dishonest, tactic of many religious people. You retreat to the vaguest places when a debate goes to specifics.

Later, when it is time to decide how people are supposed to live, you will get very specific.

Still, it is ridiculous to try to debate without any definitions whatsoever. What are we to agree to or not? It seems you won't even be honest enough to commit to that.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan you are entertaining I will give you that.
It is enlightening to see how different folk hold different views.
Funny how some must have God and others dont.
Have a nice day.
Alex

 

[Yazata]

I am sorry but I can not resist the temptation to say.....
The opening post claim has, not withstanding the efforts from some to provide support, has with out doubt failed.

That's certainly true for this thread. It started out as an expression of what appeared to be psychiatric illness, went through a reasonably interesting middle phase in which Write4U was arguing with Sarkus and others about Tegmark's mathematical metaphysics, then about post #500 it got totally pointless again and went nowhere.

No conclusions have been reached, which is probably too much to expect. Nothing has been clarified either, which is more reasonable to hope for. We are no closer to 'proof there is a god' than we were in post #1, nor are we any clearer on how to construct such a proof or what the proof would need to demonstrate.

There has been no proof of God and thankfully there were 74 pages of chat which suggests anyone who could offer proof had plenty of time and opportunity to clearly state a case in support of the op claim.

Thank goodness the matter has been settled that there is no proof

There is no proof in this thread, certainly. That's very different than somehow showing that no proof is possible in principle.

but those who believe are still free to do so.

The end.

Those who believe will inevitably mention their belief at some point. The atheists will disagree. So it won't be the end.

 

[Jan Ardena]

his is a standard, and grossly dishonest, tactic of many religious

This doesn't even make sense.

Later, when it is time to decide how people are supposed to live, you will get very specific.

???

Still, it is ridiculous to try to debate without any definitions whatsoever. What are we to agree to or not? It seems you won't even be honest enough to commit to that.

You're not saying I haven't offered one.
Are you?

Atheists, it seems, are frightened to to talk about God, unless they can compare Him with Santa Clause, or talking teapots.

I remember watching someone being hypnotised to not remember the number 6, in any context. It worked. No matter how fast they counted up to 50, they always missed out 6, as though it never existed. I think it is like that with modern atheism.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan you are entertaining I will give you that.

Just trying to counteract the boring nature of one or two posters.

It is enlightening to see how different folk hold different views.

I find it entirely normal.

Funny how some must have God and others dont.
Have a nice day.
Alex

My signature sheds light on that.

Jan.

 

[PhysBang]

This doesn't even make sense.

It makes a lot of sense. In a debate to establish the existence of a deity, it is helpful to not have to prove too much, so many evangelicals leave out many of the features of their favored deity in these arguments.

???

Perhaps you haven't noticed all the people killing other people on religious grounds. Or trying to control the bodies of others on religious grounds. While some people try to rely on very vague definitions to prove "god" exists, others then use that admission for a very specific definition that has nothing to do with the arguments based on vague ideas.

You're not saying I haven't offered one.
Are you?

No, I'm saying that you are inconsistent: you offer one definition and then you change your definition when challenged about it.

Atheists, it seems, are frightened to to talk about God, unless they can compare Him with Santa Clause, or talking teapots.

On the contrary: many atheists talk about the divine. No atheist will suggest that someone should not read the Bible, for example. There is nothing that makes religion and the idea of a deity look worse than actually looking at how religions work and how people talk about deities.

This is why people like you, deceitful people, only use vague language when trying to make some sort of argument that "god" exists.

What atheists are afraid of is religious people trying to kill them and otherwise control them on the basis of how they actually think about "god", not how they pretend to think about "god" when presenting deceitful arguments.

I remember watching someone being hypnotised to not remember the number 6, in any context. It worked. No matter how fast they counted up to 50, they always missed out 6, as though it never existed. I think it is like that with modern atheism.

I'm sure that you do. But then, your best argument seems to be that we should just believe it because then we will believe it.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see God as the number 1.
Without 1, there is no 2, 3, and so on.
There are no halves, quarters, thirds and so on.

This is not a description; this is a metaphor.

Surely this is not a hard question to answer directly.

 

[Write4U]

For there to be an argument, there has to be terms which both sides agree upon. In this case, we must agree upon what God is, despite our belief status.
It has become clear that the atheist, in this discussion, is not prepared to make any such agreement. Therefore, there is no argument. Only defence, and denial.

If we laid down a rule which states one must leave all presuppositions at the door. My definition of God could still be thrown into the pot, as it has nothing to do with whether or not I believe God to be real. What would the atheist definition be?
jan.

Perhaps it is not a metaphysical/philosophical question what God is, but what It is not.
We can say God is the *body* (collection) of universal mathematical constants, but we cannot say that It is intelligent, motivated and emotional. I could agree with such a analogy in a casual way.

Knowledge of mathematical and chemical processes can give us a mental image of implacable universal functions which are in essence mathematical and the chemistry which allowed for the evolution of the world as we know it. These functions need to be respected or bad things will happen, (the wrath of God).

But such an image does not need personal worship or having cathedrals built in His honor. Better would be to spend all that labor and treasure to built institutes for the sciences (the muses), where testing and applications of universal mathematics and chemistry can be performed to discover the properties and potentials (the essence) of the universe.

This is why I am a fan of David Bohm. I recently saw that Bohmian mechanics are being revived and that his interpretation of hierarchical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in reality is drawing renewed interest. It seems that evidence has been discovered which would confirm the deBroglie-Bohm *Pilot Wave* as one of the fundamental properties of the universe.

The beauty of Bohmian mechanics is his attempt to look at the universe as a *wholeness and implicate order* rather than in separate *aspects*, such as QM and GR.

We could have called such a condition by a single word *God*, but that word has been so damaged by the writings (scriptures) of metaphysical spiritualists, that the word God has lost all of it's meaning and has become so confused as to be detrimental to the peaceful pursuit of the properties of the *Wholeness and the Implicate Order*.

As Carlin observed, it is the people's different interpretations of the properties and demands of God that has caused untold misery.

 

[spidergoat]

...But we're not discussing belief.
For example if you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Agreed?

I disagree. Beliefs can be true or false.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Jan I am at a loss to understand what you mean when you say "its not about belief".
Would it not be fair to say the whole God thing is only about belief or to extend that statement to include "faith" would be reasonable, however what else can either you or I bring to the table in this discussion.
Neither you or I can offer proof that our position is only belief or faith that we have the correct answer.
I know you like to rely upon "the scriptures" as some sort of proof or evidence and I ask why you rate them so highly.
Clearly they were written in times when folk did not have the knowledge we have accumulated today and also in those times superstition was the prime tool used to describe many things.
I am sure if we reviewed medical practices for example we will find many strange approaches to healing, in fact I suspect one could devote a life time to the study of superstitious practices through the ages.
So it seems reasonable to suggest the times when scriptures were written, in fact when many religious practices developed, were such that humans used superstition to explain things generally.
What I am driving at is this.. One would not take seriously many of the medical practices of those times because we now know they were nonsence and yet you seem happy to rate scriptures from those uninformed times as somewhat good authority.
How do you know the scriptures were not written by the same folk who thought cutting up a toad under moonlight was a cure for dandruff.
Further if I for example or anyone else for thatmatter proclaimed I was a God today do you think I or whoever made such a claim would be taken seriously... Or if I wrote a scripture that it would be regarded as more than the raving of a poor deluded person. Would one be regarded as anything other than mentally ill.
I can not understand why one can regard those ancient writtings as useful.
But sincerely I am trying to understand where you are coming from so I ask if you can provide me with a genuine responce and resist thr temptation to be playful.
Moreover how can you suggest all of this is not about belief or faith.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

It makes a lot of sense. In a debate to establish the existence of a deity, it is helpful to not have to prove too much, so many evangelicals leave out many of the features of their favored deity in these arguments.

We're not discussing my "favoured deity.
The title of the thread is called "Prove there is a God". I'm attempting to do so. It's all just for fun.

Perhaps you haven't noticed all the people killing other people on religious grounds. Or trying to control the bodies of others on religious grounds.

If people were killing people, purely on religious grounds, then you would find that going on in affluent western countries wherever religious people lived.
What you regard as "religious killings, is more than likely politically, and sociologically motivated.

While some people try to rely on very vague definitions to prove "god" exists, others then use that admission for a very specific definition that has nothing to do with the arguments based on vague ideas.

???

No, I'm saying that you are inconsistent: you offer one definition and then you change your definition when challenged about it.

An example?

On the contrary: many atheists talk about the divine. No atheist will suggest that someone should not read the Bible, for example.

How does suggesting someone should not read the Bible related to talking about the divine? And how does show that atheists aren't frightened to talk about God??

This is why people like you, deceitful people, only use vague language when trying to make some sort of argument that "god" exists.

I'm not deceitful. That is just a bandwagon you find convenient to jump on. Created by real deceitful people.
If you think I'm mistaken, show where have deceived you.

What atheists are afraid of is religious people trying to kill them and otherwise control them on the basis of how they actually think about "god", not how they pretend to think about "god" when presenting deceitful arguments.

So atheists are paranoid, right out of an atheists mouth (fingertips).
That is a very interesting admission.

I'm sure that you do. But then, your best argument seems to be that we should just believe it because then we will believe it.

And you call me deceitful?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This is not a description; this is a metaphor.

I didn't say it was a description.

Surely this is not a hard

What's not a hard question to answer directly?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perhaps it is not a metaphysical/philosophical question what God is, but what It is not.
We can say God is the *body* (collection) of universal mathematical constants, but we cannot say that It is intelligent, motivated and emotional. I could agree with such a analogy in a casual way.

The reason you can't say that is because you deny God.

You have absolutely no idea if, or how, intelligence manifests itself, as a physical substance.

Knowledge of mathematical and chemical processes can give us a mental image of implacable universal functions which are in essence mathematical and the chemistry which allowed for the evolution of the world as we know it. These functions need to be respected or bad things will happen, (the wrath of God).

How does knowledge and mathematics give rise to mental images, let alone the ability to comprehend, and understand them and the notion of what knowledge and mathematics are in the first place?

But such an image does not need personal worship or having cathedrals built in His honor. Better would be to spend all that labor and treasure to built institutes for the sciences (the muses), where testing and applications of universal mathematics and chemistry can be performed to discover the properties and potentials (the essence) of the universe.

In other words deny God, and let's do this by ourselves. We don't need God. Look, I can grow my own food, make my own medicine. What do we need God for?
Is that kind of where you're going?

This is why I am a fan of David Bohm. I recently saw that Bohmian mechanics are being revived and that his interpretation of hierarchical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in reality is drawing renewed interest. It seems that evidence has been discovered which would confirm the deBroglie-Bohm *Pilot Wave* as one of the fundamental properties of the universe.

Where did he get his ability from?

As Carlin observed, it is the people's different interpretations of the properties and demands of God that has caused untold misery.

Doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I disagree. Beliefs can be true or false.

You miss the point.

I asked: If you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Agreed?

Jan.

 

[PhysBang]

We're not discussing my "favoured deity.
The title of the thread is called "Prove there is a God". I'm attempting to do so. It's all just for fun.

No, the title of the thread is, "Proof there is a God." This thread was started by someone who was evangelizing, it was not in fun. It was part of an attack, on behalf of one religious sect, on all other religious sects and on those who do not belong to any religious sect.

You have a favored deity: it's your favorite idea of the divine. It might not be a well-thought out idea, but it is there nonetheless.

Now maybe you don't want to kill gay people. Maybe you don't want to make women subservient to men. But you have ideas about how the world should be governed based on your idea.

If people were killing people, purely on religious grounds, then you would find that going on in affluent western countries wherever religious people lived.

And you do.

What you regard as "religious killings, is more than likely politically, and sociologically motivated.

And one of those political and sociological motivations is religion.

???

Someone like William Lane Craig, for example, actively uses deception in arguing for the existence of a very vague definition of the divine. This is, for him and others, a step towards running the world according to religious principles.

An example?

Right now, I don't want to read more of your writing than I have to, so I'm not going to link. Let's just say that your posts about god being everything are inconsistent: you claim both that god is everything and that god is not everything.

How does suggesting someone should not read the Bible related to talking about the divine? And how does show that atheists aren't frightened to talk about God??

Because atheists love talking about the god of the Bible and all the qualities of that god. It's a frank appraisal of a given idea of a deity rather than a retreat into vague and inconsistent definitions.

I'm sure that you don't care to find out, but you can easily find hundreds of videos, podcasts, radio programs, and other items of media of atheists talking about the divine.

I'm not deceitful. That is just a bandwagon you find convenient to jump on. Created by real deceitful people.
If you think I'm mistaken, show where have deceived you.

IF you are not deceitful, then stop saying things like, "It's not just a matter of accepting my definition. My definition doesn't matter, especially if I'm leaving presupposition at the door." Be honest, give your definition, and argue for that definition. Don't retreat to some vague definition that you do not believe in order to try to convince someone else to believe in a roundabout fashion.

So atheists are paranoid, right out of an atheists mouth (fingertips).
That is a very interesting admission.

It appears that you know very little about the actual world. You seem to not know that people kill other people in religious grounds quite often in developed countries. You seem not to know that people in developed countries regularly try to control the lives of others based on religious grounds. (The current frontrunner for the Republican party in the USA is advocating at least the latter, if not also the former.)

 

[spidergoat]

You miss the point.

I asked: If you found out today that God did exist, you wouldn't have needed to believe that He did, prior to that. Agreed?

Jan.

No! The only thing that would change is an unreasonable belief would become a reasonable one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No! The only thing that would change is an unreasonable belief would become a reasonable one.

Surely the only thing that would change would be going from not knowing, to knowing that God exists?

But apart from that, belief would not be necessary to know that God exists. Agreed?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan I am at a loss to understand what you mean when you say "its not about belief".
Would it not be fair to say the whole God thing is only about belief or to extend that statement to include "faith" would be reasonable, however what else can either you or I bring to the table in this discussion.
Neither you or I can offer proof that our position is only belief or faith that we have the correct answer.

Our position should be neutral. We should be able to have discussions about anything, be it fact or fiction, without having to bring our personal belief into it.

I know you like to rely upon "the scriptures" as some sort of proof or evidence and I ask why you rate them so highly.

I don't see scriptures as proof or evidence, I use them for information.
You would need to read them for yourself to see why they are important.

Clearly they were written in times when folk did not have the knowledge we have accumulated today and also in those times superstition was the prime tool used to describe many things.
I am sure if we reviewed medical practices for example we will find many strange approaches to healing, in fact I suspect one could devote a life time to the study of superstitious practices through the ages.

That's your opinion.

I can not understand why one can regard those ancient writtings as useful.

Well, people do. So maybe you're missing out on something.

Moreover how can you suggest all of this is not about belief or faith.

I don't understand how you can't comprehend something without having to bring belief and or faith into it.

It's like a pop music fan, not being able to understand why someone would be a classical music fan.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Surely the only thing that would change would be going from not knowing, to knowing that God exists?

You can believe things that you don't know. Belief and knowledge aren't opposites.

But apart from that, belief would not be necessary to know that God exists. Agreed?

If you know or just think you know God exists, then you also believe God exists.